AB

Corporation Code does not expressly provide that the

NATURE AND DEFINITION provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be made to
apply suppletorily, nor does it adopt the nomenclature of
1. Ient vs. Tullett Prebon
penalties of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of
FACTS: Petitioner lent is a British national and the Chief the latter cannot be made to apply suppletorily to the
Financial Officer of Tradition Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. former as provided for in the first sentence of Article 10
(Tradition Asia) in Singapore. Petitioner Schulze is a of the Revised Penal Code." Thus, she concluded that a
Filipino/German who does Application Support for charge of conspiracy which has for its basis Article 8 of
Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in London (Tradition the Revised Penal Code cannot be made applicable to
London). Tradition Group and Tullett are competitors in the provisions of the Corporation Code.
the inter-dealer broking business.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 144 of the Corporation
Sometime in August 2008, in line with Tradition Group's Code is applicable to Sections 31 and 34 of the same
motive of expansion and diversification in Asia, statute such that criminal liability attaches to violations of
petitioners lent and Schulze were tasked with the Sections 31 and 34.
establishment of a Philippine subsidiary of Tradition Asia
RULING: No. In all criminal prosecutions, the existence
to be known as Tradition Financial Services Philippines,
of criminal liability for which the accused is made
Inc. (Tradition Philippines). Tradition Philippines was
answerable must be clear and certain. When there is
registered with the Securities and Exchange
doubt on the interpretation of criminal laws, all must be
Commission (SEC) on September 19, 2008 with
resolved in favor of the accused.
petitioners lent and Schulze, among others, named as
incorporators and directors in its Articles of After a meticulous consideration of the arguments
Incorporation. presented by both sides, the Court comes to the
conclusion that there is textual ambiguity in Section
On October 15, 2008, Tullett, through one of its
144; moreover, such ambiguity remains even after
directors, Gordon Buchan, filed a Complaint-Affidavit
an examination of its legislative history and the use
with the City Prosecution Office of Makati City against
of other aids to statutory construction, necessitating
the officers/employees of the Tradition Group for
the application of the rule of lenity in the case at bar.
violation of the Corporation Code.

Impleaded as respondents in the Complaint-Affidavit  Rule of lenity (defined) – ambiguities in a criminal

were petitioners lent and Schulze, Jaime Villalon statute relating to prohibition and penalties be
(Villalon), who was formerly President and Managing resolved in favor of the defendant if it is not contrary
Director of Tullett, Mercedes Chuidian (Chuidian), who to legislative intent.
was formerly a member of Tullett's Board of Directors, There is no provision in the Corporation Code using
and other John and Jane Does. similarly emphatic language that evinces a
Villalon and Chuidian were charged with using their categorical legislative intent to treat as a criminal
former positions in Tullett to sabotage said company by offense each and every violation of that law.
orchestrating the mass resignation of its entire brokering Consequently, there is no compelling reason for the
staff in order for them to join Tradition Philippines. With Court to construe Section 144 as similarly employing the
respect to Villalon, Tullett claimed that the former held term "penalized" or "penalty" solely in terms of criminal
several meetings between August 22 to 25, 2008 with liability.
members of Tullett's Spot Desk and brokering staff in We agree with petitioners that the lack of specific
order to convince them to leave the company. Villalon language imposing criminal liability in Sections 31 and
likewise supposedly intentionally failed to renew the 34 shows legislative intent to limit the consequences of
contracts of some of the brokers. On August 25, 2008, a their violation to the civil liabilities mentioned therein.
meeting was also allegedly held in Howzat Bar in Makati Had it been the intention of the drafters of the law to
City where petitioners and a lawyer of Tradition define Sections 31 and 34 as offenses, they could
Philippines were present. At said meeting, the brokers of have easily included similar language as that found
complainant Tullett were purportedly induced, en masse, in Section 74.
to sign employment contracts with Tradition Philippines
and were allegedly instructed by Tradition Philippines' The Corporation Code was intended as a regulatory
lawyer as to how they should file their resignation letters. measure, not primarily as a penal statute. Sections 31
to 34 in particular were intended to impose exacting
Complainant also claimed that Villalon asked the brokers standards of fidelity on corporate officers and
present at the meeting to call up Tullett's clients to inform directors but without unduly impeding them in the
them that they had already resigned from the company discharge of their work with concerns of litigation.
and were moving to Tradition Philippines. Considering the object and policy of the Corporation
According to Tullett, respondents Villalon and Chuidian Code to encourage the use of the corporate entity as a
(who were still its directors or officers at the times vehicle for economic growth, we cannot espouse a strict
material to the Complaint-Affidavit) violated Sections 31 construction of Sections 31 and 34 as penal offenses in
and 34 of the Corporation Code which made them relation to Section 144 in the absence of unambiguous
criminally liable under Section 144. As for petitioners lent statutory language and legislative intent to that effect.
and Schulze, Tullett asserted that they conspired with When Congress intends to criminalize certain acts, it
Villalon and Chuidian in the latter's acts of disloyalty does so in plain, categorical language, otherwise such a
against the company. statute would be susceptible to constitutional attack. As
Petitioners Ient and Schulze denied the charges leveled earlier discussed, this can be readily seen from the text
against her. She pointed out that the Corporation Code of Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8189 and Section 74 of
is not a "special law" within the contemplation of Article the Corporation Code.
10 of the Revised Penal Code on the supplementary We stress that had the Legislature intended to attach
application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws penal sanctions to Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation
since said provision purportedly applies only to "special Code it could have expressly stated such intent in the
penal laws." She further argued that "since the

1
 AB
same manner that it did for Section 74 of the same "At about 3:00 in the afternoon of May 27, 1986, the
Code. defendant came back again to plaintiff's house and
directly proceeded to the latter's bedroom, where the
CHARACTERISTICS OF latter and his countryman, Abbas Torabian, were playing
chess. Plaintiff opened his safe in the bedroom and
CRIMINAL LAW obtained $2,000.00 from it, gave it to the defendant for
the latter's fee in obtaining a visa for plaintiff's wife. The
defendant told him that he would be leaving the
General
Philippines very soon and requested him to come out of
the house for a while so that he can introduce him to his
1. Minucher vs. Scalzo cousin waiting in a cab. Without much ado, and without
putting on his shirt as he was only in his pajama pants,
FACTS: Sometime in May 1986, an Information for he followed the defendant where he saw a parked cab
violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, opposite the street. To his complete surprise, an
otherwise also known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act American jumped out of the cab with a drawn high-
of 1972," was filed against petitioner Khosrow powered gun. He was in the company of about 30 to 40
Minucher and one Abbas Torabian with the RTC, Filipino soldiers with 6 Americans, all armed. He was
handcuffed and after about 20 minutes in the street, he
Branch 151, of Pasig City. The criminal charge followed
was brought inside the house by the defendant. He was
a "buy-bust operation" conducted by the Philippine police
made to sit down while in handcuffs while the defendant
narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an Iranian was inside his bedroom. The defendant came out of the
national, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, bedroom and out from defendant's attaché case, he took
was said to have been seized. something and placed it on the table in front of the
plaintiff. They also took plaintiff's wife who was at that
On 03 August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-
time at the boutique near his house and likewise
45691 before the RTC (RTC), Branch 19, of Manila for arrested Torabian, who was playing chess with him in
damages on account of what he claimed to have been the bedroom and both were handcuffed together. Plaintiff
trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur was not told why he was being handcuffed and why the
Scalzo. privacy of his house, especially his bedroom was
invaded by defendant. He was not allowed to use the
"During his (Minucher) first meeting with the defendant telephone. In fact, his telephone was unplugged. He
on May 13, 1986, upon the introduction of Jose Iñigo, the asked for any warrant, but the defendant told him to
defendant expressed his interest in buying caviar. As a `shut up.’ He was nevertheless told that he would be
matter of fact, he bought two kilos of caviar from plaintiff able to call for his lawyer who can defend him.
and paid P10,000.00 for it. Selling caviar, aside from that
of Persian carpets, pistachio nuts and other Iranian ISSUE: Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled
products was his business after the Khomeini to diplomatic immunity.
government cut his pension of over $3,000.00 per
month. During their introduction in that meeting, the RULING: Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United States
defendant gave the plaintiff his calling card, which Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine
showed that he is working at the US Embassy in the government to conduct activities in the country to help
Philippines, as a special agent of the Drug contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the
Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, defense of state immunity from suit.
of the United States, and gave his address as US
Embassy, Manila. At the back of the card appears a  A significant document would appear to be Exhibit
telephone number in defendant’s own handwriting, the No. 08, dated 08 November 1992, issued by the
number of which he can also be contacted. Office of Protocol of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and signed by Emmanuel C. Fernandez,
"It was also during this first meeting that plaintiff Assistant Secretary, certifying that "the records of
(Minucher) expressed his desire to obtain a US Visa for the Department (would) show that Mr. Arthur W.
his wife and the wife of a countryman named Abbas Scalzo, Jr., during his term of office in the
Torabian. The defendant told him that he [could] help Philippines (from 14 October 1985 up to 10 August
plaintiff for a fee of $2,000.00 per visa. Their
1988) was listed as an Assistant Attaché of the
conversation, however, was more concentrated on
United States diplomatic mission and was, therefore,
politics, carpets and caviar. Thereafter, the defendant
promised to see plaintiff again. accredited diplomatic status by the Government of
the Philippines."
"On May 19, 1986, the defendant called the plaintiff and  But while the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might
invited the latter for dinner at Mario's Restaurant at thus remain contentious, it was sufficiently
Makati. He wanted to buy 200 grams of caviar. Plaintiff established that, indeed, he worked for the United
brought the merchandize but for the reason that the States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to
defendant was not yet there, he requested the restaurant conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities
people to x x x place the same in the refrigerator. within the country on the dates pertinent to this case.
Defendant, however, came and plaintiff gave him the If it should be ascertained that Arthur Scalzo was
caviar for which he was paid. Then their conversation acting well within his assigned functions when he
was again focused on politics and business. committed the acts alleged in the complaint, the
present controversy could then be resolved under
"On May 26, 1986, defendant visited plaintiff again at the the related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.
latter's residence for 18 years at Kapitolyo, Pasig. The  While evidence is inadequate to show any similar
defendant wanted to buy a pair of carpets which plaintiff agreement between the governments of the
valued at $27,900.00. After some haggling, they agreed
Philippines and of the United States (for the latter to
at $24,000.00. For the reason that defendant did not yet
have the money, they agreed that defendant would come send its agents and to conduct surveillance and
back the next day. The following day, at 1:00 p.m., he related activities of suspected drug dealers in the
came back with his $24,000.00, which he gave to the Philippines), the consent or imprimatur of the
plaintiff, and the latter, in turn, gave him the pair of Philippine government to the activities of the United
carpets. States Drug Enforcement Agency, however, can be
gleaned from the FACTS heretofore elsewhere
mentioned. The official exchanges of communication
2
 AB
between agencies of the government of the two Section 45 of the Agreement which provides:
countries, certifications from officials of both the
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of
United States Embassy, as well as the participation this Article experts and consultants performing missions
of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and
the "buy-bust operation" conducted at the residence immunities:
of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo, may be
inadequate to support the "diplomatic status" of the a) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts
latter but they give enough indication that the performed by them in their official capacity
Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if except when the Bank waives the immunity.
not consent, to the activities within Philippine
territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug The immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but
Enforcement Agency. subject to the exception that the act was done in "official
 The Convention lists the classes of heads of capacity."
diplomatic missions to include (a) ambassadors
 Slandering a person could not possibly be covered
or nuncios accredited to the heads of state, (b)
by the immunity agreement because our laws do not
envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to
allow the commission of a crime, such as
the heads of states; and (c) charges d' affairs
defamation, in the name of official duty.
accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs.
 The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was
Comprising the "staff of the (diplomatic) mission" are
acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires
the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the
for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be
technical and service staff. Only the heads of
presented at the proper time. At any rate, it has been
missions, as well as members of the diplomatic staff,
ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause
excluding the members of the administrative,
does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the
technical and service staff of the mission, are
charges.
accorded diplomatic rank. Even while the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides for 3. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem
immunity to the members of diplomatic missions, it
does so, nevertheless, with an understanding that FACTS: Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and
the same be restrictively applied. Only "diplomatic respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
agents," under the terms of the Convention, are contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990.
vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil On January 19, 1994, they were blessed with a son
and criminal suits. The Convention defines named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of
"diplomatic agents" as the heads of missions or the filing of the instant petition was sixteen (16) years of
members of the diplomatic staff, thus impliedly age.
withholding the same privileges from all others. It
might bear stressing that even consuls, who Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19,
represent their respective states in concerns of 1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
commerce and navigation and perform certain appropriate Court of Holland. At that time, their son was
administrative and notarial duties, such as the only eighteen (18) months old. Thereafter, petitioner and
issuance of passports and visas, authentication of her son came home to the Philippines.
documents, and administration of oaths, do not
ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunities According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to
provide monthly support to their son in the amount of
and privileges accorded diplomats, mainly for the
Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene (which is equivalent to
reason that they are not charged with the duty of
Php17,500.00 more or less). However, since the arrival
representing their states in political matters. of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent
2. Liang vs. People never gave support to the son, Roderigo.

FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working with the Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines
Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for and remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then,
allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB have been residing thereat.
worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel,
with two counts of grave oral defamation. sent a letter demanding for support from respondent.
However, respondent refused to receive the letter.
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by
the MeTC. After fixing petitioner's bail at P2,400.00 per
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed
criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody
a complaint affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of
of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC
Cebu City against respondent for violation of Section 5,
judge received an "office of protocol" from the
paragraph E(2) of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that
refusal to support his minor child with petitioner.
petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process
under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB
Subsequently, without the RTC-Cebu having resolved
and the Philippine Government regarding the
the application of the protection order, respondent filed a
Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of: (1) lack of
country. Based on the said protocol communication that jurisdiction over the offense charged; and (2) prescription
petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without of the crime charged.
notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal
cases. On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein
ISSUE: assailed Order dismissing the instant criminal case
against respondent on the ground that the FACTS
RULING: Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its charged in the information do not constitute an offense
face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is with respect to the respondent who is an alien,
covered by any immunity.
3
 AB
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for o Assuming arguendo that the English Law on the
Reconsideration thereto reiterating respondent’s matter were properly pleaded and proved in
obligation to support their child under Article 195 of the accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules
Family Code, thus, failure to do so makes him liable of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao
under R.A. No. 9262 which "equally applies to all Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law would
persons in the Philippines who are obliged to support
still not find applicability.
their minor children regardless of the obligor’s
o Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is
nationality."
contrary to a sound and established public policy of
the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order
ISSUE:
shall not be applied.
 Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation o Even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce
to support his minor child under Philippine law; and a parent’s obligation to support his child nor
 Whether or not a foreign national can be held penalize the noncompliance therewith, such
criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines
unjustified failure to support his minor child. because it would be of great injustice to the child to
be denied of financial support when the latter is
RULING: entitled thereto.
 Petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New Civil 4. Gonzales vs. Abaya
Code in demanding support from respondent, who is
a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the New Civil FACTS: On July 26, 2003, President Gloria
Code stresses the principle of nationality. Macapagal Arroyo received intelligence reports that
o Insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, some members of the AFP, with high-powered
specifically the provisions of the Family Code weapons, had abandoned their designated places of
on support, the same only applies to Filipino assignment. Their aim was to destabilize the
citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies government. The President then directed the AFP and
to foreigners such that they are governed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) to track and arrest
their national law with respect to family rights them.
and duties.
o Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the On July 27, 2003 at around 1:00 a.m., more than 300
Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he heavily armed junior officers and enlisted men of the
AFP – mostly from the elite units of the Army’s Scout
is subject to the laws of his country, not to
Rangers and the Navy’s Special Warfare Group –
Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give
entered the premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury
support to his child, as well as the consequences of Apartments on Ayala Avenue, Makati City. They
his failure to do so. disarmed the security guards and planted explosive
devices around the building.
 It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is
not obliged to support petitioner’s son under Article 195 Led by Navy Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes IV, the troops
of the Family Code as a consequence of the Divorce sported red armbands emblazoned with the emblem of
Covenant obtained in Holland. This does not, however, the "Magdalo" faction of the Katipunan. 1 The troops
mean that respondent is not obliged to support then, through broadcast media, announced their
petitioner’s son altogether. grievances against the administration of President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, such as the graft and corruption in
o In international law, the party who wants to have a the military, the illegal sale of arms and ammunition to
the "enemies" of the State, and the bombings in Davao
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
City intended to acquire more military assistance from
burden of proving the foreign law. In the present
the US government. They declared their withdrawal of
case, respondent hastily concludes that being a
support from their Commander-in-Chief and demanded
national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such
that she resign as President of the Republic. They also
laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to
called for the resignation of her cabinet members and
support. While respondent pleaded the laws of the
the top brass of the AFP and PNP.
Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not
obliged to support his son, he never proved the
same. About noontime of the same day, President Arroyo
issued Proclamation No. 427 declaring a state of
rebellion, followed by General Order No. 4 directing
o In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national
the AFP and PNP to take all necessary measures to
law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of suppress the rebellion then taking place in Makati
processual presumption shall govern. Under this City. She then called the soldiers to surrender their
doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly weapons at five o’clock in the afternoon of that same
pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that day.
the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic
or internal law. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated
o Since the law of the Netherlands as regards the the incident and recommended that the military
obligation to support has not been properly pleaded personnel involved be charged with coup d’etat
and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be defined and penalized under Article 134-A of the
the same with Philippine law, which enforces the Revised Penal Code, as amended. On July 31, 2003,
obligation of parents to support their children and the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice
penalizing the non-compliance therewith. (DOJ) recommended the filing of the corresponding
Information against them.
 Notwithstanding that the national law of respondent
states that parents have no obligation to support their
children or that such obligation is not punishable by law, Meanwhile, on August 2, 2003, pursuant to Article 70
of the Articles of War, respondent General Narciso
said law would still not find applicability in light of the
Abaya, then AFP Chief of Staff, ordered the arrest
ruling in Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty and detention of the soldiers involved in the
Corporation, Oakwood incident and directed the AFP to conduct
its own separate investigation.
4
 AB
On the same date, respondent Chief of Staff issued Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with 2,000
Letter Order No. 625 creating a Pre-Trial barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline,
Investigation Panel tasked to determine the propriety and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil, with a total value of
of filing with the military tribunal charges for P40,426,793,87, was sailing off the coast of Mindoro
violations of the Articles of War under near Silonay Island.
Commonwealth Act No. 408, 4 as amended, against
the same military personnel. Specifically, the charges The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including
are: (a) violation of Article 63 for disrespect toward the Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second Mate Christian
President, the Secretary of National Defense, etc., (b) Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was suddenly
violation of Article 64 for disrespect toward a superior boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven
officer, (c) violation of Article 67 for mutiny or sedition, fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older brother
(d) violation of Article 96 for conduct unbecoming an of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates,
officer and a gentleman, and (e) violation of Article 97 for including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante,
conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Jr. were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber
handguns, and bolos. They detained the crew and took
Of the original 321 accused in Criminal Case No. 03- complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, accused-
2784, only 243 (including petitioners herein) filed with the appellant Loyola ordered three crew members to paint
RTC, Branch 148 an Omnibus Motion praying that the over, using black paint, the name "M/T Tabangao" on the
said trial court assume jurisdiction over all the charges front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the
filed with the military tribunal. They invoked Republic Act PNOC logo on the chimney of the vessel. The vessel
(R.A.) No. 7055. was then painted with the name "Galilee," with registry at
San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio
counters that R.A. No. 7055 specifies which offenses messages to PNOC that the ship was undergoing
covered by the Articles of War are service-connected. repairs.
These are violations of Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and
95 to 97. The law provides that violations of these ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant Cheong can
Articles are properly cognizable by the court martial. be convicted as accomplice when he was not charged as
As the charge against petitioners is violation of Article 96 such and when the acts allegedly committed by him
which, under R.A. No. 7055 is a service-connected were done or executed outside Philippine waters and
offense, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the court territory.
martial.
RULING: As regards the contention that the trial court
ISSUE: did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside
RULING: We hold that the offense for violation of Article Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably,
96 of the Articles of War is service-connected. This is the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed
expressly provided in Section 1 (second paragraph) of "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were
R.A. No. 7055. committed in Philippine waters, although the captive
vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore
It is clear from the foregoing that Rep. Act No. 7055 did where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold.
not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try
cases involving violations of Articles 54 to 70,
Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the
Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles
attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
of War as these are considered "service-connected
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the
crimes or offenses." In fact, it mandates that these
pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of
shall be tried by the court-martial.
the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055 reads:
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of
SEC. 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to
and other persons subject to military law, including the rule on territoriality in criminal law.
members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical
Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant
the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified
local government ordinances, regardless of whether or piracy under the penal code but under a special law,
not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in
which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried
Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532
by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as
determined before arraignment by the civil court, is should be applied with more force here since its purpose
service-connected, in which case, the offense shall is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in
be tried by court-martial, Provided, That the President Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA 761
of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the
order or direct at any time before arraignment that law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime
any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19
civil courts. [1922]).

As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or 2. People vs. Lol-lo

offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to
70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of FACTS: On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left
Commonwealth Act No. 408. Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch
possession. In one of the boats was one individual, a
Territorial Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven men,
women, and children, likewise subjects of Holland. After
1. People vs. Tulin a number of days of navigation, at about 7 o'clock in the
evening, the second boat arrived between the Islands of
FACTS: In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the
Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-

5
 AB
four Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light
once on the Dutch boat, too for themselves all of the Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta.
cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed
two of the women by methods too horrible to the a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-
described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with the intervention7 on the ground that the Ordinance directly
exception of the two young women, were again placed affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-
on it and holes were made in it, the idea that it would hotels and motels in Manila.8 The three companies are
submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people, components of the Anito Group of Companies which
after eleven days of hardship and privation, were owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro
succored violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Manila.9
Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of the Moro marauder
were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the
Saraw. At Maruro the two women were able to escape. Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to
Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which
Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South confers on cities, among other local government units,
Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they the power:
were arrested and were charged in the CFI of Sulu with
the crime of piracy. [To] regulate the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels,
A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other
Moros, based on the grounds that the offense charged similar establishments, including tourist guides and
was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any court transports.22
of the Philippine Islands, and that the FACTS did not
constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of
Philippine Islands. the power of the City under Article III, Section 18(kk) of
the Revised Manila Charter, thus:
ISSUE:

RULING: Piracy is a crime not against any particular "to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and
state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of
the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace,
competent tribunal of any country where the offender
good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of
may be found or into which he may be carried.
the city and its inhabitants, and such others as be
It cannot be contended with any degree of force as was necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers
done in the lower court and as is again done in this and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties
for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two
court, that the CFI was without jurisdiction of the case.
hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis.
such fine and imprisonment for a single offense. 23

CONSTITUTIONAL Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional

and void since it violates the right to privacy and the
LIMITATIONS ON CRIMINAL freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police
power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive
LAW interference in their business.
Due Process and Equal Protection
ISSUE:
1. White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila RULING: We reiterate that individual rights may be
adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be
FACTS: This Petition2 under Rule 45 of the Revised required by the legitimate demands of public interest or
Rules on Civil Procedure, which seeks the reversal of public welfare.
the Decision3 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of
Appeals, challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance
Two standards of judicial review were established: strict
No. 7774 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time
scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or
Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up
restricting the political process, and the rational basis
Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses,
standard of review for economic legislation.
Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City
of Manila" (the Ordinance).
A third standard, denominated as heightened or
immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S.
On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor
Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on
Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.4
gender and legitimacy.
On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances
Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate
declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary governmental interest.58 Under intermediate review,
injunction and/or temporary restraining order ( TRO) 5 governmental interest is extensively examined and the
with the RTC (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 impleading as availability of less restrictive measures is considered.
defendant, herein respondent City of Manila (the City)
represented by Mayor Lim.6 MTDC prayed that the Strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the
Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as quality and the amount of governmental interest brought
among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict
and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing
operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was
with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as
authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to
other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier
admit customers on a short time basis as well as to
charge customers wash up rates for stays of only three applications to equal protection
hours. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in
fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished
simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive
6
 AB
measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes the Department of Social Welfare and Development
and drug dealers through active police work would be (DSWD) for the year 2002, there are 1,417 physically
more effective in easing the situation. abused/maltreated cases out of the total of 5,608 cases.
xxx (T)here are 1,091 DSWD cases out of a total number
The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from of 3,471 cases for the first semester of 2003. Female
needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. However violence comprised more than 90% of all forms of abuse
well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an and violence and more than 90% of these reported
arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the cases were committed by the women's intimate partners
establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance such as their husbands and live-in partners.73
needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of
the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their Recently, the Philippine Commission on Women
patrons without sufficient justification. presented comparative statistics on violence against
women across an eight-year period from 2004 to August
2. Garcia vs. Drilon of 2011 with violations under R.A. 9262 ranking first
among the different VAW categories since its
FACTS: On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia implementation in 2004.
(private respondent) filed, for herself and in behalf of her
minor children, a verified petition6 (Civil Case No. 06-  Gender bias and prejudices
797) before the RTC (RTC) of Bacolod City for the
issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against Our own Senator Loi Estrada lamented in her
her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to Sponsorship Speech for Senate Bill No. 2723 that
R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; "(w)henever violence occurs in the family, the police
emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a treat it as a private matter and advise the parties to settle
result of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with the conflict themselves. Once the complainant brings the
threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of case to the prosecutor, the latter is hesitant to file the
financial support.7 complaint for fear that it might later be withdrawn. This
lack of response or reluctance to be involved by the
During the pendency of Civil Case No. 06-797, petitioner police and prosecution reinforces the escalating,
filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition 34 for recurring and often serious nature of domestic
prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 01698), with prayer violence."80
for injunction and temporary restraining order,
challenging (1) the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for B. Classification is germane to the purpose of the
being violative of the due process and the equal law
protection clauses, and (2) the validity of the modified
TPO issued in the civil case for being "an unwanted The distinction between men and women is germane to
product of an invalid law." the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence
committed against women and children, spelled out in its
ISSUE: Whether or not RA No. 9262 is violative of the Declaration of Policy, as follows:
due process and equal protection clauses.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared that
RULING: No, RA No. 9262 is not violation of the due
the State values the dignity of women and children and
process and equal protection clauses.
guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also
recognizes the need to protect the family and its
1. R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal members particularly women and children, from violence
protection of the laws. Measured against the and threats to their personal safety and security.
foregoing jurisprudential yardstick, we find that
R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as C. Classification is not limited to existing
shall hereinafter be discussed and, as such, did conditions only and applies equally to all
not violate the equal protection clause by members
favoring women over men as victims of violence
and abuse to whom the State extends its
protection. The application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the existing
conditions when it was promulgated, but to future
conditions as well, for as long as the safety and security
of women and their children are threatened by violence
A. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions. and abuse.
The unequal power relationship between women and
men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be R.A. 9262 applies equally to all women and children who
victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and suffer violence and abuse.
prejudice against women all make for real differences
justifying the classification under the law. As Justice There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A.
McIntyre succinctly states, "the accommodation of 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit. As
differences ... is the essence of true equality." defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed
"against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the
 Women are the "usual" and "most likely" victims of gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual
violence. or dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law
At the time of the presentation of Senate Bill No. 2723, provides that the offender be related or connected to the
official statistics on violence against women and children victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or
show that – dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of
the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal
x x x physical injuries had the highest number of cases Code (RPC).
at 5,058 in 2002 representing 55.63% of total cases
reported (9,903). And for the first semester of 2003, 2. R.A. 9262 is not violative of the
there were 2,381 reported cases out of 4,354 cases due process clause of the Constitution.
which represent 54.31%. xxx (T)he total number of
women in especially difficult circumstances served by

7
 AB
A protection order is an order issued to prevent further support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only
acts of violence against women and their children, their mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also
family or household members, and to grant other through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to safeguard the through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there
offended parties from further harm, minimize any is no denial of procedural due process.107
disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity
and ability to regain control of their life.96 Freedom of Expression

"The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to 1. US vs. Bustos

ensure that the victim or offended party is afforded all the
remedies necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to FACTS: In the latter part of 1915, numerous citizens of
the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim from the Province of Pampanga assembled, and prepared
greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary through
designated family or household member safety in the the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien, and five
family residence, and to prevent the perpetrator from individuals signed affidavits, charging Roman Punsalan,
committing acts that jeopardize the employment and justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol,
support of the victim. Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his
removal.
The rules require that petitions for protection order be in
writing, signed and verified by the petitioner98 thereby Briefly stated the specific charges against the justice of
undertaking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every the peace were.
allegation therein. Since "time is of the essence in cases
of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented," 99 the 1. That Francisca Polintan, desiring to make complaint
court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle against Mariano de los Reyes, visited the justice of the
but before notice and hearing when the life, limb or peace, who first told her that he would draw up complaint
property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is for P5; afterwards he said he would take P3 which she
reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary paid; also kept her in the house for four days as a
to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent servant and took from her two chickens and twelve
danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is "gandus;"
about to recur.100
2. That Valentin Sunga being interested in a case
There need not be any fear that the judge may have no regarding land which was on trial before the justice of the
rational basis to issue an ex parte order. The victim is peace, went to see the justice of the peace to ascertain
required not only to verify the allegations in the petition, the result of the trial, and was told by the justice of the
but also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the peace that if he wished to win he must give him P50. Not
petition.101 having this amount, Sunga gave the justice nothing, and
a few days later was informed that he had lost the case.
It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary Returning again to the office of the justice of the peace in
requirements of procedural due process must yield to the order to appeal, the justice told him that he could still win
necessities of protecting vital public interests, 103 among if he would pay P50;
which is protection of women and children from violence
and threats to their personal safety and security. 3. That Leoncio Quiambao, having filed a complaint for
assault against four persons, on the day of the trial the
It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex justice called him over to his house, where he secretly
parte, the court shall likewise order that notice be gave him (Quiambao) P30; and the complaint was
immediately given to the respondent directing him to file thereupon shelved.
an opposition within five (5) days from service.
Moreover, the court shall order that notice, copies of the The Executive Secretary referred the papers to the judge
petition and TPO be served immediately on the of first instance for the Seventh Judicial District
respondent by the court sheriffs. The TPOs are initially requesting investigation, proper action, and report. The
effective for thirty (30) days from service on the justice of the peace was notified and denied the charges.
respondent.104 The judge of first instance found the first count not
proved and counts 2 and 3 established. In view of this
Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will result, the judge, the Honorable Percy M. Moir, was of
nonetheless order the immediate issuance and service the opinion "that it must be, and it is hereby,
of the notice upon the respondent requiring him to file an recommended to the Governor-General that the
opposition to the petition within five (5) days from respondent be removed from his position as justice of
service. The date of the preliminary conference and the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Province of
hearing on the merits shall likewise be indicated on the Pampanga, and it is ordered that the proceedings had in
notice.105 this case be transmitted to the Executive Secretary."

The opposition to the petition which the respondent Later the justice of the peace filled a motion for a new
himself shall verify, must be accompanied by the trial; the judge of first instance granted the motion and
affidavits of witnesses and shall show cause why a reopened the hearing; documents were introduced,
temporary or permanent protection order should not be including a letter sent by the municipal president and six
issued.106 councilors of Masantol, Pampanga, asserting that the
justice of the peace was the victim of prosecution, and
It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of that one Agustin Jaime, the auxiliary justice of the peace,
a petition for protection order should be apprised of the had instituted the charges for personal reasons; and the
charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to judge of first instance ordered a suppression of the
present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being charges against Punsalan and acquitted him the same.
"stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job,
future employment and reputation, all in a matter of
seconds, without an inkling of what happened" is a mere Criminal action against the petitioners, now become the
product of an overactive imagination. The essence of defendants, was instituted on October 12, 1916, by
due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity virtue of the following information:
to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in

8
 AB
That on or about the month of December, 1915, in the Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public
municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, P. I., the said men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp
accused, voluntarily, illegally, and criminally and with incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of
malicious intent to prejudice and defame Mr. Roman officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile
Punsalan Serrano who was at said time and place and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged
justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol of this with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must
province, wrote, signed, and published a writing which not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon
was false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and the
libelous against the justice of the peace Mr. Roman dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism
Punsalan Serrano. does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the
individual is less than the State, so must expected
All of this has been written and published by the accused criticism be born for the common good.
with deliberate purpose of attacking the virtue, honor,
and reputation of the justice of the peace, Mr. Roman The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include
Punsalan Serrano, and thus exposing him to public the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration
hatred contempt, and ridicule. All contrary to law. of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Whether the
law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject
It should be noted that the information omits paragraphs for proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a
of the petition mentioning the investigation before the justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other
judge of first instance, the affidavits upon which based public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled.
and concluding words, "To the Executive Secretary, Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part of
through the office of Crossfield and O'Brien." the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort.

ISSUE: "The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of

their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free
RULING: The right to assemble and petition is the government, but only in a despotism." (Howarth vs.
necessary consequence of republican institutions and Barlow [1906], 113 App. Div., N. Y., 510.)
the complement of the part of free speech. Assembly
means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably 2. Guingguing vs. People
for consultation in respect to public affairs. Petition
means that any person or group of persons can apply, FACTS:
without fear of penalty, to the appropriate branch or
office of the government for a redress of grievances. The ISSUE:
persons assembling and petitioning must, of course,
assume responsibility for the charges made. RULING: Particularly, this Court has accepted the
proposition that the actual malice standard governs the
Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly prosecution of criminal libel cases concerning public
administration of government have demanded protection figures. In Adiong v. COMELEC,66 the Court cited New
for public opinion. The inevitable and incontestable result York Times in noting that "[w]e have adopted the
has been the development and adoption of the doctrine principle that debate on public issues should be
of privilege. uninhibited, robust, and wide open and that it may well
include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly
sharp attacks on government and public officials." 67 The
A pertinent illustration of the application of qualified
Court was even more explicit in its affirmation of New
privilege is a complaint made in good faith and without York Times in Vasquez v. Court of Appeals.68 Speaking
malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public through Justice Mendoza:
official when addressed to an officer or a board having
some interest or duty in the matter. Even when the For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is
statements are found to be false, if there is probable false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct,
cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is unless the public official concerned proves that the
made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover statement was made with actual malice — that is, with
the mistake of the individual. But the statements must be knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
made under an honest sense of duty; a self-seeking whether it was false or not.
motive is destructive.

Further, although the charges are probably not true as to The Court has likewise extended the "actual malice" rule
the justice of the peace, they were believed to be true by to apply not only to public officials, but also to public
the petitioners. Good faith surrounded their action.
Probable cause for them to think that malfeasance or figures. In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong,71 the
misfeasance in office existed is apparent. The ends and Court cited with approval the following definition of a
the motives of these citizens— to secure the removal public figure propounded by an American textbook on
torts:
from office of a person thought to be venal — were
justifiable. In no way did they abuse the privilege. These
respectable citizens did not eagerly seize on a frivolous A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his
matter but on instances which not only seemed to them accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by
of a grave character, but which were sufficient in an adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a
investigation by a judge of first instance to convince him legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his
of their seriousness. character, has become a 'public personage.' He is, in
other words, a celebrity.
The onus of proving malice then lies on the plaintiff. The
plaintiff must bring home to the defendant the existence Freedom of Religion
of malice as the true motive of his conduct. Falsehood
and the absence of probable cause will amount to proof 1. Estrada vs. Escritor
of malice.
FACTS: In a sworn letter-complaint dated July 27, 2000,
The interest of society and the maintenance of good complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F.
government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Caoibes, Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253, RTC of Las

9
 AB
Piñas City, requesting for an investigation of rumors that congregation, it is binding only to her co-members in the
respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said congregation and serves only the internal purpose of
court, is living with a man not her husband. They displaying to the rest of the congregation that she and
allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. her mate are a respectable and morally upright couple.
Estrada is not personally related either to Escritor or her Their religious belief and practice, however, cannot
partner and is a resident not of Las Piñas City but of override the norms of conduct required by law for
Bacoor, Cavite. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against government employees. To rule otherwise would create
Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral a dangerous precedent as those who cannot legalize
act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should their live-in relationship can simply join the Jehovah's
not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might Witnesses congregation and use their religion as a
appear that the court condones her act. defense against legal liability.

Judge Caoibes referred the letter to Escritor who stated On the other hand, respondent Escritor reiterates the
that "there is no truth as to the veracity of the allegation" validity of her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio based
and challenged Estrada to "appear in the open and on the belief and practice of her religion, the Jehovah's
prove his allegation in the proper forum." Witnesses.

Estrada confirmed that he filed the letter-complaint for ISSUE: Whether or not to exact from respondent
immorality against Escritor because in his frequent visits Escritor, a member of 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' the strict
to the Hall of Justice of Las Piñas City, he learned from moral standards of the Catholic faith in determining her
conversations therein that Escritor was living with a man administrative responsibility in the case at bar is a
not her husband and that she had an eighteen to twenty- violation of her right to freedom of religion.
year old son by this man. This prompted him to write to
Judge Caoibes as he believed that employees of the RULING: We cannot therefore simply take a passing
judiciary should be respectable and Escritor's live-in look at respondent's claim of religious freedom, but must
arrangement did not command respect. instead apply the "compelling state interest" test. The
government must be heard on the issue as it has not
Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of
judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband demonstrating the state's compelling interest which can
having died in 1998. She admitted that she has been override respondent's religious belief and practice.
living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of
it is inappropriate for the complainant, a private person,
marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But
to present evidence on the compelling interest of the
as a member of the religious sect known as the
state. The burden of evidence should be discharged by
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible
the proper agency of the government which is the Office
Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity
of the Solicitor General. To properly settle the issue in
with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living
the case at bar, the government should be given the
together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration
opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest
of Pledging Faithfulness,"
it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondent's stance
that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and
At the time Escritor executed her pledge, her husband punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise
was still alive but living with another woman. Quilapio
protection.
was likewise married at that time, but had been
separated in fact from his wife. During her testimony, When to apply the compelling state interest test
Escritor volunteered to present members of her
congregation to confirm the truthfulness of their 1. Has the statute or government action created a
"Declarations of Pledging Faithfulness," but Judge burden on the free exercise of religion?
Caoibes deemed it unnecessary and considered her  The courts often look into the sincerity of the
identification of her signature and the signature of religious belief, but without inquiring into the truth of
Quilapio sufficient authentication of the documents. the belief.

2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to

Escritor and Quilapio transferred to Salazar's
justify this infringement of religious liberty?
Congregation, the Almanza Congregation in Las Piñas,
in May 2001. The declarations having been executed in  In this step, the government has to establish that its
Atimonan, Quezon in 1991, Salazar had no personal purposes are legitimate for the state and that they
knowledge of the personal circumstances of Escritor and are compelling.
Quilapio when they executed their declarations.  Government must do more than assert the
However, when the two transferred to Almanza, Salazar objectives at risk if exemption is given; it must
inquired about their status from the Atimonan precisely show how and to what extent those
Congregation, gathered comments of the elders therein, objectives will be undermined if exemptions are
and requested a copy of their declarations. The Almanza granted.
Congregation assumed that the personal circumstances
of the couple had been considered by the Atimonan 3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate
Congregation when they executed their declarations. purposes used the least intrusive means
possible so that the free exercise is not infringed
any more than necessary to achieve the
In sum, therefore, insofar as the congregation is
legitimate goal of the state?
concerned, there is nothing immoral about the conjugal
 The analysis requires the state to show that the
arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they
means in which it is achieving its legitimate state
remain members in good standing in the congregation.
objective is the least intrusive means, i.e., it has
chosen a way to achieve its legitimate state end that
Complainant Estrada adds however, that the effect of the imposes as little as possible on religious liberties.
relationship to Escritor's administrative liability must
likewise be determined. Estrada argued, through
counsel, that the Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness
recognizes the supremacy of the "proper public  Benevolent neutrality (defined) – recognizes that
authorities" such that she bound herself "to seek means government must pursue its secular goals and
to . . . legalize their union." Thus, even assuming interests but at the same time strives to uphold
arguendo that the declaration is valid and binding in her
10
 AB
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within complied with the requirements for the reimposition of
flexible constitutional limits. the death penalty and therefore the death penalty law is
o Exercised by the Court in case of conflict not unconstitutional.
between the free exercise clause and the State.
In the meantime, Congress had seen it fit to change the
Criteria of a creed in order to qualify as a religion mode of execution of the death penalty from
under the First Amendment electrocution to lethal injection, and passed Republic Act
No. 8177, AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL
1. There must be belief in God or some parallel
INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT
belief that occupies a central place in the
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE
believer’s life;
PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL
2. The religion must involve a moral code
CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC
transcending individual belief, i.e., it cannot be
ACT NO. 7659. Pursuant to the provisions of said law,
purely subjective;
the Secretary of Justice promulgated the Rules and
3. A demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary,
Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177
but the court must not inquire into the truth or
("implementing rules")6 and directed the Director of the
reasonableness of the belief;
Bureau of Corrections to prepare the Lethal Injection
4. There must be some associational ties, although
Manual.
there is also a view that religious beliefs held by a
single person rather than being part of the teachings
of any kind of group or sect are entitled to the On March 2, 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for
protection of the Free Exercise Clause. Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order to enjoin respondents Secretary of Justice and
Director of the Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the
When to apply the Lemon Test execution by lethal injection of petitioner under R.A. No.
8177 and its implementing rules as these are
A. What is the Establishment Clause? (Imbong vs. unconstitutional and void for being: (a) cruel, degrading
Ochoa) and inhuman punishment per se as well as by reason of
 The establishment clause "principally prohibits the its being (b) arbitrary, unreasonable and a violation of
due process, (c) a violation of the Philippines' obligations
State from sponsoring any religion or favoring
under international covenants, (d) an undue delegation
any religion as against other religions. It
of legislative power by Congress, (e) an unlawful
mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious
exercise by respondent Secretary of the power to
groups."
legislate, and (f) an unlawful delegation of delegated
 Essentially, it prohibits the establishment of a
powers by the Secretary of Justice to respondent
state religion and the use of public resources for
Director.
the support or prohibition of a religion.
ISSUE: Whether or not death by lethal injection is
B. What is the Lemon Test? unconstitutional for being a cruel, degrading, and
By 1971, the Court integrated the different elements of inhuman punishment.
the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that
evolved in the 1950s and 1960s and laid down a three- RULING: No, lethal injection is not cruel, degrading, or
pronged test in Lemon vs. Kurtzman in determining inhuman punishment under Sec. 19, Art. III of the 1987
the constitutionality of policies challenged under the Constitution.
Establishment Clause.
Now it is well-settled in jurisprudence that the death
penalty per se is not a cruel, degrading or inhuman
The Lemon test requires a challenged policy to meet the
punishment. In the oft-cited case of Harden v. Director of
following criteria to pass scrutiny under the
Establishment Clause: (SPE) Prisons, this Court held that "punishments are cruel
when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the
1. The statute must have a secular legislative
punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of
purpose;
that word as used in the constitution. It implies there
2. Its primary or principal effect must be one
that neither advances nor inhibits religion; something inhuman and barbarous, something more
and than the mere extinguishment of life."
3. The statute must not foster an excessive
entanglement with religion. the "court" which designates the date of execution is the
trial court which convicted the accused, that is, after this
No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman Court has reviewed the entire records of the case26 and
has affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Thereupon,
punishment
the procedure is that the "judgment is entered fifteen
(15) days after its promulgation, and 10 days thereafter,
1. People vs. Echagaray the records are remanded to the court below including a
certified copy of the judgment for execution.27 Neither is
FACTS: On June 25, 1996, this Court affirmed the there any uncertainty as to the date of execution nor the
conviction of petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the time of notification. As to the date of execution, Section
crime of rape of the 10 year-old daughter of his common- 15 of the implementing rules must be read in conjunction
law spouse and the imposition upon him of the death with the last sentence of Section 1 of R.A. No. 8177
penalty for the said crime. which provides that the death sentence shall be carried
out "not earlier than one (1) year nor later then eighteen
Petitioner duly filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising (18) months from the time the judgment imposing the
mainly factual issues, and on its heels, a Supplemental death penalty became final and executory, without
Motion for Reconsideration raising for the first time the prejudice to the exercise by the President of his
issue of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 76592 executive clemency powers at all times." Hence, the
(the death penalty law) and the imposition of the death death convict is in effect assured of eighteen (18)
penalty for the crime of rape. months from the time the judgment imposing the death
penalty became final and executory wherein he can seek
On February 7, 1998, this Court denied petitioner's executive clemency and attend to all his temporal and
Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for spiritual affairs.
Reconsideration with a finding that Congress duly
11
 AB
Petitioner further contends that the infliction of "wanton there being no offsetting generic aggravating nor
pain" in case of possible complications in the ordinary mitigating circumstance/s to vary the penalty
intravenous injection, considering and as petitioner imposable;
claims, that respondent Director is an untrained and
untested person insofar as the choice and administration accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer
of lethal injection is concerned, renders lethal injection a the penalty of deprivation of liberty consisting of an
cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. Such imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law of
supposition is highly speculative and unsubstantiated. FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision
Correccional in its medium period AS MINIMUM, to
First. Petitioner has neither alleged nor presented FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of
evidence that lethal injection required the expertise only Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period AS
of phlebotomists and not trained personnel and that the MAXIMUM; to indemnify private complainant Danilo
drugs to be administered are unsafe or ineffective.31 Tangcoy the amount of ₱98,000.00 as actual damages,
Petitioner simply cites situations in the United States and to pay the costs of suit.
wherein execution by lethal injection allegedly resulted in
prolonged and agonizing death for the convict,32 without SO ORDERED.
any other evidence whatsoever.
The case was elevated to the CA, however, the latter
Second. Petitioner overlooked Section 1, third paragraph denied the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the decision
of R.A. No. 8177 which requires that all personnel of the RTC.
involved in the execution proceedings should be trained
prior to the performance of such task. We must presume ISSUE:
that the public officials entrusted with the implementation RULING: Finally, the opinion advanced by Chief Justice
of the death penalty (by lethal injection) will carefully Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno echoes the view that the
avoid inflicting cruel punishment. role of the Court is not merely to dispense justice, but
Third. Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely also the active duty to prevent injustice. Thus, in order
incidental in carrying out the execution of death penalty to prevent injustice in the present controversy, the Court
and does not fall within the constitutional proscription should not impose an obsolete penalty pegged eighty-
against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. "In a three years ago, but consider the proposed ratio of 1:100
limited sense, anything is cruel which is calculated to as simply compensating for inflation. Furthermore, the
give pain or distress, and since punishment imports pain Court has in the past taken into consideration "changed
or suffering to the convict, it may be said that all conditions" or "significant changes in... circumstances" in
punishments are cruel. But of course the Constitution its decisions.
does not mean that crime, for this reason, is to go Similarly, the Chief Justice is of the view that the Court is
unpunished."34 The cruelty against which the not delving into the validity of the substance of a statute.
Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent The issue is no different from the Court's adjustment of
in the method of punishment, not the necessary suffering indemnity in crimes against persons, which the Court
involved in any method employed to extinguish life had previously adjusted in light of current times, like in
humanely. the case of People v. Pantoja.[47] Besides, Article 10 of
2. Corpuz vs. People the Civil Code mandates a presumption that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
FACTS: Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy and With due respect to the opinions and proposals
petitioner met at the Admiral Royale Casino in Olongapo advanced by the Chief Justice and my Colleagues, all
City sometime in 1990. Private complainant was then the proposals ultimately lead to prohibited judicial
engaged in the business of lending money to casino
legislation. Short of being repetitious and as extensively
players and, upon hearing that the former had some
pieces of jewelry for sale, petitioner approached him on discussed above, it is truly beyond the powers of the
May 2, 1991 at the same casino and offered to sell the Court to legislate laws, such immense power belongs to
said pieces of jewelry on commission basis. Private Congress and the Court should refrain from crossing this
complainant agreed, and as a consequence, he turned clear-cut divide. With regard to civil indemnity, as
over to petitioner the following items: an 18k diamond elucidated before, this refers to civil liability which is
ring for men; a woman's bracelet; one (1) men's awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary
necklace and another men's bracelet, with an aggregate restitution. It is truly based on the value of money. The
value of ₱98,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt of even same cannot be said on penalties because, as earlier
date. They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the stated, penalties are not only based on the value of
proceeds of the sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the money, but on several other factors. Further, since the
same items, within a period of 60 days. The period law is silent as to the maximum amount that can be
expired without petitioner remitting the proceeds of the awarded and only pegged the minimum sum, increasing
sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. When private
the amount granted as civil indemnity is not proscribed.
complainant was able to meet petitioner, the latter
promised the former that he will pay the value of the said Thus, it can be adjusted in light of current conditions.
items entrusted to him, but to no avail. Considering that the amount of P98,000.00 is
P76,000.00 more than the P22,000.00 ceiling set by law,
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond then, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00,
reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to
Information. The dispositive portion of the decision
8 years of prision mayor minimum would be increased by
states:
7... years. Taking the maximum of the prescribed
penalty, which is 8 years, plus an additional 7 years, the
WHEREFORE, finding accused LITO CORPUZ GUILTY
maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15 years.
beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph one (1), subparagraph (b) of the One final note, the Court should give Congress a chance
Revised Penal Code; to perform its primordial duty of lawmaking. The Court
should not pre-empt Congress and usurp its inherent
powers of making and enacting laws. While it may be
the most expeditious approach, a short cut by... judicial
12
 AB
fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare Co moved to quash on the ground that the Anti-
trespass on prohibited judicial legislation. Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari Meanwhile, on May 25, 29170, another criminal
dated November 5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is complaint was filed with before Nilo Tayag and fiver
hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision dated others with subversion, as they were tagged as
March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September 5, officers of the KABATAANG MAKABAYAN, a
2007 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with... subversive organization instigating and inciting the
modification the Decision dated July 30, 2004 of the people to organize and unite for the purpose of
RTC, Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding petitioner overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa Philippines.
under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of
the Revised Penal Code, are hereby Tayag also moved to quash the complaint on the
grounds that (1) it is a bill of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3)
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the penalty it embraces more than one subject not expressed in the
imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment title thereof; and (4) it denied him the equal protection of
ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS the laws.
and ELEVEN DAYS of prision correccional, as minimum,
to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as... ISSUE:
maximum. RULING: In the case at bar, the Anti-Subversion Act was
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a condemned by the court a quo as a bill of attainder
Copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the because it "tars and feathers" the Communist Party of
Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of the Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom
Justice. and security of the country; its existence, a 'clear,
present and grave danger to the security of the
Non-imprisonment for debut or non-payment of poll Philippines.'" By means of the Act, the trial court said,
tax Congress usurped "the powers of the judge," and
1. Lozano vs. Martinez assumed "judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of
the CCP without any of the forms or safeguards of
FACTS: These petitions arose from cases involving judicial trial." Finally, according to the trial court, "if the
prosecution of offenses under the statute. The only issue [to be determined] is whether or not the
defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash accused is a knowing and voluntary member, the law is
the informations on the ground that the acts charged did still a bill of attainder because it has expressly created a
not constitute an offense, the statute being presumption of organizational guilt which the accused
unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the can never hope to overthrow."
respondent trial courts, except in one case, which is the
subject of G. R. No. 75789, wherein the trial court 1. When the Act is viewed in its actual operation, it will
declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the be seen that it does not specify the Communist Party
case. The parties adversely affected have come to us for of the Philippines or the members thereof for the
relief. purpose of punishment. What it does is simply to
declare the Party to be an organized conspiracy for
ISSUE: the overthrow of the Government for the purposes of
the prohibition, stated in section 4, against membership
RULING: The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P.
in the outlawed organization. The term "Communist
BLG. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
Party of the Philippines" issued solely for
check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation
definitional purposes. In fact, the Act applies not only
for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation
to the Communist Party of the Philippines but also to
which the law punishes.
"any other organization having the same purpose and
their successors." Its focus is not on individuals but on
The enactment of B.P. BLG. 22 is a declaration by the
conduct.
legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making
and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public Ex-post Facto Laws
nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
sanctions. 1. US vs. Diaz-Conde

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check

FACTS: It appears from the record that on the 6th day of
transcends the private interests of the parties directly
May, 1921, a complaint was presented in the CFI of the
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of
city of Manila, charging the defendants with a violation of
the community at large. The mischief it creates is not
the Usury Law (Act No. 2655). Upon said complaint they
only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to
were each arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
The cause was finally brought on for trial on the 1st day
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand
of September, 1921. At the close of the trial, and after a
fold, can very wen pollute the channels of trade and
consideration of the evidence adduced, the Honorable
commerce, injure the banking system and eventually
M. V. del Rosario, judge, found that the defendants were
hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. As
guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and
aptly stated — 30
sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P120 and, in
case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in
Bill of Attainder accordance with the provisions of the law. From that
sentence each of the defendants appealed to this court.
1. People vs. Ferrer
That on the 30th day of December, 1915, the alleged
FACTS: On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for
offended persons Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia
violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was
Lianco executed and delivered to the defendants a
filed against the respondent Feliciano Co, as he
contract (Exhibit B) evidencing the fact that the former
became an officer of the Communist Party of the
had borrowed from the latter the sum of P300, and (2)
Philippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed
that, by virtue of the terms of said contract, the said
to overthrow the government.
13
 AB
Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco obligated prohibited from entering the City of Manila, he entered
themselves to pay to the defendants interest at the rate said City.
of five per cent (5%) per month, payable within the first
ten days of each and every month, the first payment to Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally
be made on the 10th day of January, 1916. approved and enacted in Spanish, the Spanish text
governs (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665, 668). It is
ISSUE: Whether or not said law could have retroactive clear that the word "imprisonment" used in the English
effect or operation. text is a wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase
RULING: We are of the opinion, and so decide, that the "sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the Spanish
acts complained of by the defendants did not constitute a text. It is equally clear that although the Solicitor General
crime at the time they were committed, and therefore the impliedly admits destierro as not constituting
sentence of the lower court should be, and is hereby, imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty, though partial,
revoked. Laws must be construed prospectively and not in the sense that as in the present case, the appellant by
retrospectively. If a contract is legal at its inception, it his sentence of destierro was deprived of the liberty to
cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation. enter the City of Manila.

A law imposing a new penalty, or a new liability or Retroactive application when favorable to the
disability, or giving a new right of action, must not be accused
construed as having a retroactive effect. It is an 1. Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan
elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the
time the contract was made must govern its FACTS: In October 1982, petitioner Ophelia Hernan
interpretation and application joined the Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC), Cordillera Administrative
In the present case Act No. 2655 made an act which had Region (CAR) in Baguio City wherein she served as an
been done before the law was adopted, a criminal act, accounting clerk. In September 1984, she was promoted
and to make said Act applicable to the act complained of to the position of Supervising Fiscal Clerk by virtue of
would be to give it an ex post facto operation. The which she was designated as cashier, disbursement and
Legislature is prohibited from adopting a law which will collection officer.3 As such, petitioner received cash and
other collections from customers and clients for the
make an act done before its adoption a crime.
payment of telegraphic transfers, toll foes, and special
 Act No. 2655 – took was enacted on Feb. 24, 1916, message fees. The collections she received were
after the contract was executed deposited at the bank account of the DOTC at the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Baguio City Branch.
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
On December 17, 1996, Maria Imelda Lopez, an auditor
Liberally in favor of the accused of the Commission on Audit (COA), conducted a cash
examination of the accounts handled by petitioner as
instructed by her superior, Sherelyn Narag. As a result,
Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English
Lopez came across deposit slips dated September 19,
text 1996 and November 29, 1996 bearing the amounts of
₱11,300.00 and ₱81,348.20, respectively.5 Upon close
1. People vs. Abilong scrutiny, she noticed that said deposit slips did not bear
a stamp of receipt by the LBP nor was it machine
FACTS: Florentino Abilong was charged in the CFI of validated. Suspicious about what she found, she and
Manila with evasion of service of sentence under the Narag verified all the reports and other documents
following information: turned-over to them by petitioner.6 On the basis of said
findings, Narag sent a letter to the LBP to confirm the
That on or about the 17th day of September, 1947, in the remittances made by petitioner. After adding all the
City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then deposits made and upon checking with the teller's
a convict sentenced and ordered to serve two (2) years, blotter, Nadelline Orallo, the resident auditor of LBP,
four (4) months and one (1) day of destierro during which found that no deposits were made by petitioner for the
he should not enter any place within the radius of 100 account of DOTC on September 19, 1996 for the amount
kilometers from the City of Manila, by virtue of final of ₱11,300.00 and November 29, 1996 for the amount of
judgment rendered by the municipal court on April 5, ₱81,340.20.7
1946, in criminal case No. B-4795 for attempted robbery,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously Thereafter, the LBP's officer-in-charge, Rebecca R.
evade the service of said sentence by going beyond the Sanchez, instructed the bank's teller, Catalina Ngaosi, to
limits made against him and commit vagrancy. conduct their own independent inquiry. It was discovered
that on September 19, 1996, the only deposit in favor of
Counsel for the appellant contends that a person like the the DOTC was that made by its Ifugao office in the
accused evading a sentence of destierro is not criminally Lagawe branch of the LBP.8 This prompted Lopez to
liable under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, write to petitioner informing her that the two (2) aforesaid
particularly article 157 of the said Code for the reason remittances were not acknowledged by the bank. The
that said article 157 refers only to persons who are auditors then found that petitioner duly accounted for the
imprisoned in a penal institution and completely ₱81,348.20 remittance but not for the ₱11,300.00.
deprived of their liberty. He bases his contention on Dissatisfied with petitioner's explanation as to the
the word "imprisonment" used in the English text of whereabouts of the said remittance, Narag reported the
said article. matter to the COA Regional Director who, in turn wrote
to the LBP for confirmation. The LBP then denied
ISSUE: receiving any ₱11,300.00 deposit on September 19,
1996 from petitioner for the account of the DOTC.9
RULING: In conclusion we find and hold that the Thus, the COA demanded that she pay the said amount.
appellant is guilty of evasion of service of sentence Petitioner, however, refused. Consequently, the COA
under article 157 of the Revised Penal Code (Spanish filed a complaint for malversation of public funds against
text), in that during the period of his sentence of
petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon
destierro by virtue of final judgment wherein he was

14
 AB
which, after due investigation, recommended her Prescribed but undeserved penalties (Art. 5, RPC)
indictment for the loss of ₱11,300.00.
1. People vs. Formigones
ISSUE:

RULING: The general rule is that a judgment that has FACTS: In the month of November, 1946, the defendant
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, Abelardo Formigones was living on his farm in Bahao,
and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the Libmanan, municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, with
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of his wife, Julia Agricola, and his five children. From there
they went to live in the house of his half-brother,
fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
Zacarias Formigones, in the barrio of Binahian of the
rendered it or by the highest court of the land.54 When, same municipality of Sipocot, to find employment as
however, circumstances transpire after the finality of the harvesters of palay. After about a month's stay or rather
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, on December 28, 1946, late in the afternoon, Julia was
the Court may sit en bane and give due regard to such sitting at the head of the stairs of the house. The
exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the accused, without any previous quarrel or provocation
doctrine of immutability. whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house and
stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating
To the Court, the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) the right lung and causing a severe hemorrhage
No. 10951 entitled An Act Adjusting the Amount or the resulting in her death not long thereafter. The blow sent
Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground, immediately
Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal followed by her husband Abelardo who, taking her up in
Code Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815 Otherwise his arms, carried her up the house, laid her on the floor
Known as the "Revised Penal Code" as Amended which of the living room and then lay down beside her. In this
accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to the crime position he was found by the people who came in
charged herein is an example of such exceptional response to the shouts for help made by his eldest
circumstance. daughter, Irene Formigones, who witnessed and testified
to the stabbing of her mother by her father.
Thus, in order to effectively avoid any injustice that
petitioner may suffer as well as a possible multiplicity of Investigated by the Constabulary, defendant Abelardo
suits arising therefrom, the Court deems it proper to signed a written statement, Exhibit D, wherein he
reopen the instant case and recall the Entry of Judgment admitted that he killed The motive was admittedly of
dated June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, which jealousy because according to his statement he used to
imposed the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of have quarrels with his wife for the reason that he often
prision mayor, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, six (6) saw her in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he
suspected that the two were maintaining illicit relations
months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as
because he noticed that his had become indifferent to
maximum. Instead, since the amount involved herein is
him (defendant).
₱11,300.00, which does not exceed ₱40,000.00, the
new penalty that should be imposed is prision
During the preliminary investigation conducted by the
correccional in its medium and maximum periods, which
justice of the peace of Sipocot, the accused pleaded
has a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months, and guilty, as shown by Exhibit E. At the trial of the case in
one (1) day, to six (6) years. The Court, however, takes the CFI, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, but
note of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of did not testify. His counsel presented the testimony of
voluntary surrender appreciated by the Sandiganbayan two guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was
in favor of petitioner. confined to the effect that his conduct there was rather
strange and that he behaved like an insane person; that
Hence, said recent legislation shall find application in sometimes he would remove his clothes and go stark
cases where the imposable penalties of the affected naked in the presence of his fellow prisoners; that at
crimes such as theft, qualified theft, estafa, robbery with times he would remain silent and indifferent to his
force upon things, malicious mischief, malversation, and surroundings; that he would refused to take a bath and
such other crimes, the penalty of which is dependent wash his clothes until forced by the prison authorities;
upon the value of the object in consideration thereof, and that sometimes he would sing in chorus with his
have been reduced, as in the case at hand, taking into fellow prisoners, or even alone by himself without being
consideration the presence of existing circumstances asked; and that once when the door of his cell was
attending its commission. For as long as it is favorable to opened, he suddenly darted from inside into the prison
the accused, said recent legislation shall find application compound apparently in an attempt to regain his liberty.
regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time
when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if ISSUE:
service of sentence has already begun. The accused, in
these applicable instances, shall be entitled to the RULING: The appeal is based merely on the theory that
benefits of the new law warranting him to serve a lesser the appellant is an imbecile and therefore exempt from
sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun criminal liability under article 12 of the Revised Penal
serving his previous sentence, and said service already Code. The trial court rejected this same theory and we
accomplishes the term of the modified sentence. In the are inclined to agree with the lower court. According to
latter case, moreover, the Court, in the interest of justice the very witness of the defendant, Dr. Francisco Gomez,
and expediency, further directs the appropriate filing of who examined him, it was his opinion that Abelardo was
an action before the Court that seeks the reopening of suffering only from feeblemindedness and not imbecility
the case rather than an original petition filed for a similar and that he could distinguish right from wrong.
purpose.
In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile
Indeed, when exceptional circumstances exist, such as within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal
the passage of the instant amendatory law imposing Code so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must
penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the
be deprived completely of reason or discernment and
Court shall not hesitate to direct the reopening of a
final and immutable judgment, the objective of which freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.
is to correct not so much the findings of guilt but the As to the strange behavior of the accused during his
applicable penalties to be imposed. confinement, assuming that it was not feigned to
stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
15
 AB
feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental which, under the law, must be sustained, this
condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. court now resorts to the discretional power
As to the strange behavior of the accused during his conferred by paragraph 2 of article 2 of the
confinement, assuming that it was not feigned to Penal Code; and.
stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental Therefore, we affirm the judgment appealed
condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. from with costs, and hereby order that a proper
petition be filed with the executive branch of the
After a careful study of the record, we are convinced that Government in order that the latter, if it be
the appellant is not an imbecile. According to the deemed proper in the exercise of the prerogative
evidence, during his marriage of about 16 years, he has vested in it by the sovereign power, may reduce
not done anything or conducted himself in anyway so as the penalty to that of the next lower.
to warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile.
Suppletory application of RPC to Special Penal Laws
The appellant has all the sympathies of the Court. He (Art. 10, RPC)
seems to be one of those unfortunate beings, simple,
and even feebleminded, whose faculties have not been 1. Ladonga vs. People
fully developed. His action in picking up the body of his
wife after she fell down to the ground, dead, taking her FACTS: That, sometime in May or June 1990, in the City
upstairs, laying her on the floor, and lying beside her for of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
loved one though he thought that she has betrayed him. conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping with one
Although he did not exactly surrender to the authorities, another, knowing fully well that they did not have
still he made no effort to flee and compel the police to sufficient funds deposited with the United Coconut
hunt him down and arrest him. In his written statement Planters Bank (UCPB), Tagbilaran Branch, did then and
he readily admitted that he killed his wife, and at the trial there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, draw and issue
he made no effort to deny or repudiate said written UCPB Check No. 284743 postdated July 7, 1990 in the
statement, thus saving the government all the trouble amount of NINE THOUSAND SEVENTY-FIVE PESOS
and expense of catching him, and insuring his AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (₱9,075.55), payable to
conviction. Alfredo Oculam, and thereafter, without informing the
latter that they did not have sufficient funds deposited
With the presence of two mitigating circumstances with the bank to cover up the amount of the check, did
without any aggravating circumstance to offset them, at then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pass
first we thought of the possible applicability of the on, indorse, give and deliver the said check to Alfredo
provisions of article 64, paragraph 5 of the Revised Oculam by way of rediscounting of the aforementioned
Penal Code for the purpose of imposing the penalty next checks; however, upon presentation of the check to the
lower to that prescribed by article 246 for parricide, drawee bank for encashment, the same was dishonored
which is reclusion perpetua to death. It will be observed for the reason that the account of the accused with the
however, that article 64 refers to the application of United Coconut Planters Bank, Tagbilaran Branch, had
penalties which contain three periods whether it be a already been closed, to the damage and prejudice of the
single divisible penalty or composed of three different said Alfredo Oculam in the aforestated amount.
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of articles 76 and 77, While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico
which is not true in the present case where the penalty bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the
applicable for parricide is composed only of two account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that
indivisible penalties. On the other hand, article 63 of the the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation,
same Code refers to the application of indivisible with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the
penalties whether it be a single divisible penalty, or two checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a
indivisible penalties like that of reclusion perpetua to signatory of the checks and had no participation in the
death. It is therefore clear that article 63 is the one issuance thereof.
applicable in the present case.
On August 24, 1996, the RTC rendered a joint decision
Paragraph 2, rule 3 of said article 63 provides that when finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable
the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance,
the lesser penalty shall be applied. Interpreting a similar Adronico applied for probation which was granted.16 On
legal provision the Supreme Court in the case of United the other hand, petitioner brought the case to the Court
States vs. Guevara (10 Phil. 37), involving the crime of of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in finding her
parricide, in applying article 80, paragraph 2 (rule 3 of criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the
the old Penal Code) which corresponds to article 63, principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22
paragraph 2 (rule 3 of the present Revised Penal Code), which is a special law; moreover, she is not a signatory
thru Chief Justice Arellano said the following:
of the checks and had no participation in the issuance
thereof.
And even though the court should take into
consideration the presence of two mitigating Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision but the
circumstances of a qualifying nature, which it Court of Appeals denied the same in a Resolution dated
cannot afford to overlook, without any November 16, 1999.
aggravating one, the penalty could not be
reduced to the next lower to that imposed by ISSUE:
law, because, according to a ruling of the court
of Spain, article 80 above-mentioned does not RULING: B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly ban the
contain a precept similar to that contained in suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
Rule 5 of article 81 (now Rule 5, art. 64 of the Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg.
Rev. Penal Code.) (Decision of September 30, 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
1879.) nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily.
Yet, in view of the excessive penalty imposed,
the strict application of which is inevitable and
16
 AB
The first clause should be understood to mean only that penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the
the special penal laws are controlling with regard to Code.
offenses therein specifically punished. Said clause only
restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that This is also the rationale for the holding in previous
special legal provisions prevail over general ones. Lex cases that the provisions of the Code on the graduation
specialis derogant generali. In fact, the clause can be of penalties by degrees could not be given
considered as a superfluity, and could have been supplementary application to special laws, since the
eliminated altogether. The second clause contains the penalties in the latter were not components of or
soul of the article. The main idea and purpose of the contemplated in the scale of penalties provided by Article
article is embodied in the provision that the "code shall 71 of the former. The suppletory effect of the Revised
be supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of
should specifically provide the contrary. the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or
physical impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy law against, such supplementary application.
in this case is analogous to the application of the
provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. The situation, however, is different where although the
For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a offense is defined in and ostensibly punished under a
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from
the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since and, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal
all the conspirators are principals. effects under the system of penalties native to said
Code. When, as in this case, the law involved speaks of
2. People vs. Simon prision correccional, in its technical sense under the
Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd
FACTS: Herein accused-appellant Martin Simon y to posit otherwise. More on this later.
Sunga was charged on November 10, 1988 with a
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act For the nonce, we hold that in the instant case the
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the imposable penalty under Republic Act No. 6425, as
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, under an indictment amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is prision
alleging that on or about October 22, 1988, at Barangay correccional, to be taken from the medium period thereof
Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga, he sold four tea bags of pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, there
marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur- being no attendant mitigating or aggravating
buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00, which tea circumstance.
bags, when subjected to laboratory examination, were
found positive for marijuana. 5. At this juncture, a clarificatory discussion of the
developmental changes in the penalties imposed for
offenses under special laws would be necessary.
After an assiduous review and calibration of the
evidence adduced by both parties, we are morally
certain that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto Originally, those special laws, just as was the
engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The conventional practice in the United States but differently
prosecution was able to prove beyond a scintilla of doubt from the penalties provided in our Revised Penal Code
that appellant, on October 22, 1988, did sell two tea and its Spanish origins, provided for one specific penalty
bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez. The latter or a range of penalties with definitive durations, such as
himself creditably testified as to how the sale took place imprisonment for one year or for one to five years but
and his testimony was amply corroborated by his without division into periods or any technical statutory
teammates. As between the straightforward, positive and cognomen. This is the special law contemplated in and
corroborated testimony of Lopez and the bare denials referred to at the time laws like the Indeterminate
and negative testimony of appellant, the former Sentence Law61 were passed during the American
undeniably deserves greater weight and is more entitled regime.
to credence.
Subsequently, a different pattern emerged whereby a
ISSUE: special law would direct that an offense thereunder shall
be punished under the Revised Penal Code and in the
same manner provided therein. Inceptively, for instance,
RULING: 4. Prision correccional has a duration of 6 Commonwealth Act No. 30362 penalizing non-payment
months and 1 day to 6 years and, as a divisible penalty, of salaries and wages with the periodicity prescribed
it consists of three periods as provided in the text of and therein, provided:
illustrated in the table provided by Article 76 of the Code.
The question is whether or not in determining the penalty
to be imposed, which is here to be taken from the Sec. 4. Failure of the employer to pay his employee or
penalty of prision correccional, the presence or absence laborer as required by section one of this Act, shall
of mitigating, aggravating or other circumstances prima facie be considered a fraud committed by such
modifying criminal liability should be taken into account. employer against his employee or laborer by means of
false pretenses similar to those mentioned in article
three hundred and fifteen, paragraph four, sub-
We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was paragraph two (a) of the Revised Penal Code and shall
held that, in imposing the penalty for offenses under be punished in the same manner as therein provided.63
special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating
circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot
and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as Thereafter, special laws were enacted where the
applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason offenses defined therein were specifically punished by
therefor was because the special laws involved provided the penalties as technically named and understood in the
their own specific penalties for the offenses punished Revised Penal Code. These are exemplified by Republic
thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) where the penalties
with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. ranged from arresto mayor to
Since the penalties then provided by the special laws death;64 Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing
concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or Decree) where the penalties run from arresto mayor to
maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible prision mayor; and Presidential Decree
to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances No. 1866 (illegal possession and other prohibited acts
whose main function is to determine the period of the involving firearms), the penalties wherefor may involve
17
 AB
prision mayor, reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua or subject to applicable provisions thereof
death. such as Article 104 of the Revised Penal
Code . . . . Article 64 of the same Code
Another variant worth mentioning is Republic Act No. should, likewise, be applicable, . . . .
6539 (Emphasis supplied.)
(Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) where the penalty is
imprisonment for not less than 14 years and 8 months More particularly with regard to the suppletory effect of
and not more than 17 years and 4 months, when the rules on penalties in the Revised Penal Code to
committed without violence or intimidation of persons or Republic Act No. 6425, in this case involving Article
force upon things; not less than 17 years and 4 months 63(2) of the Code, we have this more recent
and not more than 30 years, when committed with pronouncement:
violence against or intimidation of any person, or force
upon things; and life imprisonment to death, when the . . . Pointing out that as provided in Article 10 the
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be
killed. "supplementary" to special laws, this Court held
that where the special law expressly grants to
With respect to the first example, where the penalties the court discretion in applying the penalty
under the special law are different from and are without prescribed for the offense, there is no room for
reference or relation to those under the Revised Penal the application of the provisions of the
Code, there can be no suppletory effect of the rules for Code . . . .
the application of penalties under said Code or by other
relevant statutory provisions based on or applicable only The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended
to said rules for felonies under the Code. In this type of by P.D. No. 1623, contains no explicit grant of
special law, the legislative intendment is clear. discretion to the Court in the application of the
penalty prescribed by the law. In such case, the
The same exclusionary rule would apply to the last given court must be guided by the rules prescribed by
example, Republic Act No. 6539. While it is true that the the Revised Penal Code concerning the
penalty of 14 years and application of penalties which distill the "deep
8 months to 17 years and 4 months is virtually equivalent legal thought and centuries of experience in the
to the duration of the medium period of reclusion administration of criminal laws." (Emphasis
temporal, such technical term under the Revised Penal ours.)66
Code is not given to that penalty for carnapping.
Besides, the other penalties for carnapping attended by Under the aforestated considerations, in the case of the
the qualifying circumstances stated in the law do not Dangerous Drugs Act as now amended by Republic Act
correspond to those in the Code. The rules on penalties No. 7659 by the incorporation and prescription therein of
in the Code, therefore, cannot suppletorily apply to the technical penalties defined in and constituting
Republic Act No. 6539 and special laws of the same integral parts of the three scales of penalties in the
formulation. Code, 67 with much more reason should the provisions
of said Code on the appreciation and effects of all
On the other hand, the rules for the application of attendant modifying circumstances apply in fixing the
penalties and the correlative effects thereof under the penalty. Likewise, the different kinds or classifications of
Revised Penal Code, as well as other statutory penalties and the rules for graduating
enactments founded upon and applicable to such such penalties by degrees should have supplementary
provisions of the Code, have suppletory effect to the effect on Republic Act No. 6425, except if they would
penalties under the former Republic Act result in absurdities as will now be explained.
No. 1700 and those now provided under Presidential
Decrees Nos. 1612 and 1866. While these are special While not squarely in issue in this case, but because this
laws, the fact that the penalties for offenses thereunder aspect is involved in the discussion on the role of
are those provided for in the Revised Penal code lucidly modifying circumstances, we have perforce to lay down
reveals the statutory intent to give the related provisions the caveat that mitigating circumstances should be
on penalties for felonies under the Code the considered and applied only if they affect the periods
corresponding application to said special laws, in the and the degrees of the penalties within rational limits.
absence of any express or implicit proscription in these
special laws. To hold otherwise would be to sanction an Prefatorily, what ordinarily are involved in the graduation
indefensible judicial truncation of an integrated system of and consequently determine the degree of the penalty, in
penalties under the Code and its allied legislation, which accordance with the rules in Article 61 of the Code as
could never have been the intendment of Congress. applied to the scale of penalties in Article 71, are the
stage of execution of the crime and the nature of the
In People vs. Macatanda, a prosecution under a special participation of the accused. However, under paragraph
law (Presidential Decree No. 533, otherwise known as 5 of Article 64, when there are two or more ordinary
the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974), it was contended mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
by the prosecution that Article 64, paragraph 5, of the circumstance, the penalty shall be reduced by one
Revised Penal Code should not apply to said special degree. Also, the presence of privileged mitigating
law. We said therein that — circumstances, as provided in Articles 67 and 68, can
reduce the penalty by one or two degrees, or even more.
We do not agree with the Solicitor These provisions of Articles 64(5), 67 and 68 should not
General that P.D. 533 is a special law apply in toto in the determination of the proper penalty
entirely distinct from and unrelated to under the aforestated second paragraph of section 20 of
the Revised Penal Code. From the Republic Act No. 6425, to avoid anomalous results which
nature of the penalty imposed which is could not have been contemplated by the legislature.
in terms of the classification and
duration of penalties as prescribed in Thus, paragraph 5 of Article 61 provides that when the
the Revised Penal Code, which is not for law prescribes a penalty in some manner not specially
penalties as are ordinarily imposed in provided for in the four preceding paragraphs thereof,
special laws, the intent seems clear that the courts shall proceed by analogy therewith. Hence,
P.D. 533 shall be deemed as an when the penalty prescribed for the crime consists of
amendment of the Revised Penal Code, one or two penalties to be imposed in their full extent,
with respect to the offense of theft of the penalty next lower in degree shall likewise consist of
large cattle (Art. 310) or otherwise to be
18
 AB
as many penalties which follow the former in the scale in On the other hand, respondents argue against the
Article 71. If this rule were to be applied, and since the limited application of the overbreadth and vagueness
complex penalty in this doctrines. They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face
case consists of three discrete penalties in their full violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due
extent, that is, process and the equal protection of the laws; that the
prision correccional, prision mayor and reclusion due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from
temporal, then one degree lower would be arresto the free speech vagueness doctrine, is adequate to
menor, destierro and arresto mayor. There could, declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its
however, be no further reduction by still one or two face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was
degrees, which must each likewise consist of three adequately overthrown.
penalties, since only the penalties of fine and public
censure remain in the scale. Issue: Whether or not the RTC committed a reversible
error in declaring unconstitutional Art. 202(2) of the RPC.
The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying
circumstances may be appreciated to determine the Ruling: The Court finds for petitioner.
periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce
the penalty by degrees, in no case should such Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection
graduation of penalties reduce the imposable penalty clause; neither does it discriminate against the poor and
beyond or lower than prision correccional. It is for this the unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are
reason that the three component penalties in the second punished not for their status, as for being poor or
paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such
independent principal penalty, and that the lowest circumstances as to endanger the public peace or cause
penalty should in any event be prision correccional in alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or
order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug offenses. unemployed is not a license or a justification to act
Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.
Such interpretation is to be adopted so that the law may
continue to have efficacy rather than fail. A perfect
judicial solution cannot be forged from an imperfect law, This is exactly why we have public order laws, to which
which impasse should now be the concern of and is Article 202 (2) belongs. These laws were crafted to
accordingly addressed to Congress. maintain minimum standards of decency, morality and
civility in human society. These laws may be traced all
the way back to ancient times, and today, they have also
3. People vs. Siton come to be associated with the struggle to improve the
citizens’ quality of life, which is guaranteed by our
Facts: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is Constitution.28 Civilly, they are covered by the "abuse of
the July 29, 2005 Order1 of Branch 11, Davao City RTC rights" doctrine embodied in the preliminary articles of
in Special Civil Case No. 30-500-2004 granting the Civil Code concerning Human Relations, to the end,
respondents’ Petition for Certiorari and declaring in part, that any person who willfully causes loss or injury
paragraph 2 of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
unconstitutional. customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.29 This provision is, together with the
Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate succeeding articles on human relations, intended to
Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to embody certain basic principles "that are to be observed
Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code in two for the rightful relationship between human beings and
separate Informations dated November 18, 2003, for the stability of the social order."

That on or about November 14, 2003, in the City of Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range
Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this of acts – from public indecencies and immoralities, to
Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, public nuisances, to disorderly conduct. The acts
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously wandered and punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to
loitered around San Pedro and Legaspi Streets, this City, society’s basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on
without any visible means to support herself nor lawful the quality of life of the people of society. For example,
and justifiable purpose. the issuance or making of a bouncing check is deemed a
public nuisance, a crime against public order that must
Respondents thus filed an original petition for certiorari be abated.33 As a matter of public policy, the failure to
and prohibition with the RTC of Davao City,6 directly turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered
challenging the constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy law, by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a
claiming that the definition of the crime of vagrancy public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
under Article 202 (2), apart from being vague, results as sanctions.34 Thus, public nuisances must be abated
well in an arbitrary identification of violators, since the because they have the effect of interfering with the
definition of the crime includes in its coverage persons comfortable enjoyment of life or property by members of
who are otherwise performing ordinary peaceful acts. a community.
They likewise claimed that Article 202 (2) violated the
equal protection clause under the Constitution because it Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be
discriminates against the poor and unemployed, thus considered constitutionally offensive. It is a public order
permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable classification. crime which punishes persons for conducting
themselves, at a certain place and time which orderly
Petitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid society finds unusual, under such conditions that are
and all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and
its constitutionality; that, citing Romualdez v. norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
Sandiganbayan,13 the overbreadth and vagueness ordered society, as would engender a justifiable concern
doctrines have special application to free-speech cases for the safety and well-being of members of the
only and are not appropriate for testing the validity of community.
penal statutes; that respondents failed to overcome the
presumed validity of the statute, failing to prove that it Instead of taking an active position declaring public order
was vague under the standards set out by the Courts; laws unconstitutional, the State should train its eye on
and that the State may regulate individual conduct for their effective implementation, because it is in this area
the promotion of public welfare in the exercise of its that the Court perceives difficulties.
police power.

19
 AB
The four accused climbed the stairs of the batalan and
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF upon seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Tobias fired at him again.

Bides and Berras did not fire at that precise time but
Physical Element of Felonies (Act or Omission) when Corazon tried to call for help, Bides warned her
that he will kill her if she calls for help.
1. People vs. Silvestre and Atienza
Teresa came out of her room and when Corazon
FACTS: Martin Atienza was convicted as principal by informed her that she recognized the killers, the former
direct participation and Romana Silvestre as accomplice threatened to kill the latter if she revealed the matter to
of the crime of arson by the CFI. anyone.
On the night of Nov. 25, 1930, while Nicolas de la Cruz ISSUE: Is Teresa Domogma liable as an accessory to
and his wife, Antonio de la Cruz, were gathered together Bernardo’s murder?
with the appellants herein after supper, Martin Atienza
told said couple to take their furniture out of the house RULING: Yes, she may be held liable as an accessory
because he was going to set fire to it. Upon being asked to Bernardo’s murder.
by Nicolas and Antonia why he wanted to set fire to the
house, he answered that it was the only way he could be True it is that the proof of her direct participation in the
revenged upon the people of Masocol, who, he said, had conspiracy is not beyond reasonable doubt, for which
instigated the charge of adultery against him and his co- reason, sue cannot have the same liability as her co-
defendant, Romana Silvestre. As Martin Atienza was at appellants.
that time armed with a pistol, no one dared say anything She had no hand at all in the actual shooting of her
to him, not even Romana Silvestre, who was about a husband. Neither is it clear that she helped directly in the
meter away from her co-defendant. Alarmed at what planning and preparation thereof, albeit We are
Martin Atienza had said, the couple left the house at convinced that she knew it was going to be done and did
once to communicate with the barrio lieutant, not object. (U.S. vs. Romulo, 15 Phil. 408, 411-414.) It is
Buenaventura Ania, as to what they had just heard not definitely shown that she masterminded it either by
Martin Atienza say; but they had hardly gone a hundred herself alone or together with her co-appellant
arms’ length when the heard cries of “Fire! Fire!” Turning Talingdan.
back, they saw their home in flames. The fire destroyed
about 48 houses. There is in the record morally convincing proof that she
is at the very least an accessory to the offense
Romana listened to her co-defendant’s threat without committed by her co-accused. She was inside the room
raising a protest, and did not give the alarm when the when her husband was shot. As she came out after the
latter set fire to the house. shooting, she inquired from Corazon if she was able to
ISSUE: recognize the assailants of her father. When Corazon
Identified appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and
RULING: Mere passive presence at the scene of Bides as the culprits, Teresa did not only enjoin her
another’s crime mere silence and failure to give the daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, went to the extent of warning her, "Don't tell it to anyone.
is not punishable. I will kill you if you tell this to somebody." Later, when the
peace officers who repaired to their house to investigate
Romana Silvestre was acquitted. what happened, instead of helping them with the
2. People vs. Talingdan information given to her by Corazon, she claimed she
had no suspects in mind.
FACTS:
In other words, whereas, before the actual shooting of
Friday morning: Corazon, Teresa’s daughter, was in a
her husband, she was more or less passive in her
creek to wash clothes. She saw her mother Teresa
attitude regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy, known
meeting with Talingdan and their co-appellants Magellan to her, to do away with him, after Bernardo was killed,
Tobias, Augusto Berras, and Pedro Bides in a small hut she became active in her cooperation with them. These
owned by Bernardo. subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or
assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime"
She heard one of them say "Could he elude a bullet."
which makes her liable as an accessory after the fact
When Teresa noticed Corazon, she shoved her away under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal
saying "You tell your father that we will kill him." Code.

Saturday, after sunset: Corazon was cooking food for Deliberate Intent (Dolo)
supper when she saw her mother go down the house to 1. Manuel vs. People
go to the yard where she again met with the other
appellants. FACTS: On July 28, 1975, Eduardo was married to
Rubylus Gaña. He met the private complainant Tina B.
She noted the long guns the appellants were carrying. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in January 1996.
She stayed in Bonuan, Dagupan City for two days
Teresa came back to the house and proceeded to her
looking for a friend.
room.
Eduardo went to Baguio City to visit her. Eventually, as
Corazon informed Bernardo, who was then working on a
one thing led to another, they went to a motel where,
plow, about the presence of persons downstairs, but
despite Tina’s resistance, Eduardo succeeded in having
Bernardo paid no attention.
his way with her. Eduardo proposed on several
Bernardo proceeded to the kitchen and sat himself on occasions, assuring her that he was single. Eduardo
the floor near the door. even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina’s
parents, and was assured by them that their son was still
He was suddenly fired upon form below the stairs of the single.
“batalan.”
20
 AB
Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo sometime in the However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because
first week of March 1996. A month later, they were everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis
married before Judge Antonio C. Reyes. It appeared in neminem excusat.
their marriage contract that Eduardo was "single."
It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense
The couple was happy during the first three years of their that when he married the private complainant in 1996, he
married life. Through their joint efforts, they were able to was of the well-grounded belief
build their home Baguio City. However, starting 1999, that his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard
Manuel started making himself scarce and went to their from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He should
house only twice or thrice a year. Tina was jobless, and have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent
whenever she asked money from Eduardo, he would court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as
slap her. required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial
Sometime in January 2001, took all his clothes, left, and declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner
did not return. Worse, he stopped giving financial acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on
support. his part when he married the private complainant and, as
a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in
In August 2001, Tina became curious and made such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge
inquiries from the NSO in Manila where she learned that his burden.
Eduardo had been previously married. She secured an
NSO-certified copy of the marriage contract. She was so General and Specific Intent
embarrassed and humiliated when she learned that
Eduardo was in fact already married when they 1. People vs. Puno
exchanged their own vows.
FACTS: Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento owns a
Manuel’s Claim: Manuel testified that he declared he bakeshop in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City called Nika
was "single" in his marriage contract with Tina because Cakes and Pastries. She has a driver of her own just as
he believed in good faith that his first marriage was her husband does (Ibid., pp. 4-6).
invalid. He did not know that he had to go to court to
seek the nullification of his first marriage before marrying At around 5:00 in the afternoon of January 13, 1988, the
Tina. accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs.
Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao
People vs. Bitdu: The trial court ruled that the purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Socorro that her own driver
all the elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency
Revised Penal Code. It declared that Eduardo’s belief, (something bad befell a child), so Isabelo will temporary
that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his (sic) take his place (Id., pp. 8-9).
first wife’s 20-year absence, even if true, did not
exculpate him from liability for bigamy. Citing the ruling Mrs. Socorro's time to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig
of this Court in People v. Bitdu, the trial court further came and so she got into the Mercedes Benz of her
ruled that even if the private complainant had known that husband with Isabelo on the wheel. After the car turned
Eduardo had been previously married, the latter would right in a corner of Araneta Avenue, it stopped. A young
still be criminally liable for bigamy. man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside
the driver.
Manuel insisted that conformably to Article 3 of the
Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be Once inside, Enrique clambered on top of the back side
criminally liable for a felony. of the front seat and went onto where Ma. Socorro was
seated at the rear. He poked a gun at her.
ISSUE: Is Manuel guilty of bigamy?
Isabelo, who earlier told her that Enrique is his nephew
announced, "ma'm, you know, I want to get money from
RULING: Yes, as gleaned from the Information in the
RTC, the petitioner is charged with bigamy, a felony by you." She said she has money inside her bag and they
dolo (deceit). Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal may get it just so they will let her go. The bag contained
Code provides that there is deceit when the act is P7,000.00 and was taken.
performed with deliberate intent. Indeed, a felony cannot
Further on, the two told her they wanted P100,000 more.
exist without intent. Since a felony by dolo is classified
as an intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary. 30 Ma. Socorro agreed to give them that but would they
Although the words "with malice" do not appear in Article drop her at her gas station where the money was. The
3 of the Revised Penal Code, such phrase is included in car went about the Sta. Mesa area.
the word "voluntary."31
Ma. Socorro clutched her Rosary and prayed. Enrique's
gun was menacingly pointed at Ma. Socorro’s neck. He
For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there
said he was an NPA and threatened her.
must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil
intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.35 The car sped off north toward the North superhighway.
There, Puno asked Ma. Socorro to issue a check for
In the present case, the prosecution proved that the P100,000. Ma. Socorro complied. She drafted 3 checks
petitioner was married to Gaña in 1975, and such in denominations of two for P30,000 and one for
marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the P40,000. Enrique ordered her to swallow a pill but she
marriage is presumed to subsist.36 The prosecution also refused.
proved that the petitioner married the private
complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of the Puno turned the car around toward Metro Manila. Later,
Family Code. he changed his mind and turned the car again toward
Pampanga. Ma. Socorro, according to her, jumped out of
The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or the car then crossed to the other side of the
evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a superhighway and, after some vehicles ignored her, she
general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused was finally able to flag down a fish vendors van. Her
is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; dress had blood because, according to Ma. Socorro, she
such defense negates malice or criminal intent.
21
 AB
fell down on the ground and was injured when she material inculpatory FACTS recited therein describing
jumped out of the car. Her dress was torn too. the crime in relation to the penal law violated are
controlling. Where the specific intent of the malefactor is
On reaching Balintawak, Ma. Socorro reported the determinative of the crime charged such specific intent
matter to CAPCOM. must be alleged in the information and proved by the
Both accused were, day after, arrested. Enrique was prosecution. In this case, kidnapping was merely used
arrested trying to encash Ma. Socorro's P40,000 check as a means to consummate the crime of murder.
at PCI Bank, Makati. People vs. Puno: For kidnapping to exist, there must be
ISSUE: Can Puno be convicted of kidnapping for ransom indubitable proof that the actual specific intent of the
as charged? malefactor is to deprive the offended party of his liberty
and not where such restraint of his freedom of action is
RULING: No, there is no showing whatsoever that merely incident in the commission of another offense
appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or at the primarily intended by the malefactor.
time they committed the wrongful acts against
complainant, other than extortion of money from her Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which
under the compulsion of threats or intimidation. exists where circumstances indicate that an offender
actively desired certain criminal consequences or
With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-à-vis objectively desired a specific result to follow his act or
the charge that they had kidnapped the victim, we can failure to act. Specific intent involves a state of mind. It is
rely on the proverbial rule of ancient respectability that the particular purpose or specific intention in doing the
for this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof prohibited act. Specific intent must be alleged in the
that the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive information and proved by the State in a prosecution for
the offended party of her liberty and not where such a crime requiring specific intent. Kidnapping and murder
restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident are specific intent crimes. Specific intent may be proved
in the commission of another offense primarily intended by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. It may be
by the offenders. inferred from the circumstances of the actions of the
accused as established by the evidence on record.
United States vs. Ancheta: It has been held that the
detention and/or forcible taking away of the victims by Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Motive is
the accused, even for an appreciable period of time but referred to as the reason which prompts the accused to
for the primary and ultimate purpose of killing them, engage in a particular criminal activity. Motive is not an
holds the offenders liable for taking their lives or such essential element of a crime and hence the prosecution
other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but the need not prove the same. As a general rule, proof of
incidental deprivation of the victims' liberty does not motive for the commission of the offense charged does
constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention. not show guilty and absence of proof of such motive
does not establish the innocence of accused for the
2. People vs. Delim
crime charge such as murder. In murder, the specific
FACTS: Marlon, Ronald, and Leon together with Manuel intent is to kill the victim. In kidnapping, the specific
alias Bong, and Robert, all surnamed Delim were intent is to deprive the victim of his/her liberty.
indicted for murder of Modest Manalo Bntas, who was
Mistake of Fact
adopted by the father of the accused.

On January 23, 1999, Modesto was forcibly taken by 1. US vs. Ah Chong

defendants who were armed from his home; Marlon FACTS: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was
poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and Ronald afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to
simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim; Rita and bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair
Randy (his wife and son) being warned not to leave the against the door.
house. His body was discovered 4 days later by Randy
and his relatives. The accused were found guilty for After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone
murder. trying to open the door. He called out twice, “Who is
there?” but received no response. Fearing that the
The Information read: intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called
out again, “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” But at
“That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at
that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had
Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction
been placed against the door, and believing that he was
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and
armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the
fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
house of Modesto Delim and once inside with intent to
roommate.
kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring
with one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
ISSUE: May Ah Chong be exempted from criminal
and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of
liability for mistake of fact?
cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused
Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house
RULING: Yes, had the FACTS been as Ah Chong
guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto
believed them to be, he would have been justified in
Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of
killing the intruder under Art. 11(1). He must be acquitted
superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto Delim,
because of mistake of fact.
to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.”

The trial court rendered judgment finding accused guilty 2. People vs. Oanis
of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death.
FACTS: Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary
ISSUE: Should Delim be held liable for murder or Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija,
kidnapping? received from Major Guido a telegram of the following
tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo
RULING: Accused should be held liable for murder - In
Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him
determining what crime is charged in an information, the
22
 AB
dead or alive." Captain Monsod accordingly called for his the Philippine Air Lines bound for Hongkong. At the time
first sergeant and asked that he be given four men. of his apprehension, he was found carrying with him
foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments (380
The same instruction was given to the chief of police pieces) amounting to US$ 355,349.57, in various
Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial currency denominations without any authority as
Inspector. provided by law.

At the time the accused was apprehended, he was able

Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of
to exhibit two currency declarations which he was
Irene, and upon seeing a man sleeping with his back supposed to have accomplished upon his arrival in
towards the door where they were, simultaneously or Manila in previous trips.
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her The case, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 86-
paramour already wounded, and looking at the door 10126-P, was subsequently raffled to Branch 113,
where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing presided by herein respondent Judge Baltazar A. Dizon.
at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene fainted; it
turned out later that the person shot and killed was not Section 6 of Circular No. 960 of the Central Bank
the notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful provides as follows:
and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's
paramour. Sec. 6. Export, import of foreign exchange; exceptions.
— No person shall take out or transmit or attempt to take
According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of out or transmit foreign exchange in any form, out of the
Philippines directly, through other persons, through the
police Oanis arrived at the house, the latter asked
mails or through international carriers except when
Brigida where Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the
specifically authorized by the Central Bank or allowed
place, and upon further inquiry as to the whereabouts of under existing international agreements or Central Bank
Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in regulations.
the same room.
Tourists and non-resident visitors may take out or send
ISSUE: May Oanis be exempted from criminal liability for out from the Philippine foreign exchange in amounts not
mistake of fact? exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in
by them. For purposes of establishing the amount of
RULING: No, both accused are guilty of murder. foreign exchange brought in or out of the Philippines,
tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with
Ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other
committed without fault or carelessness. foreign currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in
the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of
entries upon arrival in the Philippines.
Appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which
would press them to immediate action. The person in the
The penal sanction is provided by Section 1, P.D. No.
room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and 1883, which reads as follows:
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if Section 1. Blackmarketing of Foreign Exchange .— That
any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the any person who shall engage in the trading or purchase
victim was unarmed. and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws
or rules and regulations of the Central Bank shall be
“No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of foreign exchange
making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal,
subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his (minimum of 12 years and I day and maximum of 20
detention." years) and a fine of no less than fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos.

Malum prohibitum as exception to the requirement At the trial, the accused tried to establish that he was a
of mens rea businessman from Kowloon, Hongkong, engaged in the
garment business, in which he had invested 4 to 5
Reyes, 2017: Intent to commit the crime and intent to million Hongkong Dollars; that he had come to the
perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may Philippines 9 to 1 0 times, although the only dates he
not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he could remember were April 2, 1986, May 4, 1986, June
did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the nature 28,1986, and July 8, 1986; that the reason for his coming
of things, the crime itself. (US vs. Go Chico) to the Philippines was to invest in business in the
Philippines and also to play in the casino; that he had a
1.  Padilla vs. Dizon group of business associates who decided to invest in
business with him.
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed by the
then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, When he came to the Philippines, he brought
against respondent Baltazar R. Dizon, RTC Judge, for US$50,000.00 and 8,500,000.00 Japanese Yen which
rendering a manifestly erroneous decision due, at the he tried to declare but the Central Bank representative
very least, to gross incompetence and gross ignorance refused to accept his declaration, until he could get a
of the law, in People vs. Lo Chi Fai, acquitting said confirmation as to the source of the money, for which
accused of the offense charged, i.e., smuggling of reason he contacted his bank in Hongkong and a telex
foreign currency out of the country. was sent to him.

The case in which the respondent rendered a decision of He also testified that his business associates, as per
acquittal involved a tourist, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught their agreement to invest in some business with him in
by a Customs guard at the Manila International Airport the Philippines, started putting their money for this
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign purpose in a common fund, hence, every time anyone of
exchange instruments out of the country. Lo Chi Fai, was them came to the Philippines, they would declare the
apprehended by a customs guard and two PAFSECOM money they were bringing in, and all declarations were
officers on July 9, 1986, while on board Flight PR 300 of handed to and kept by him; these currency declarations

23
 AB
were presented at the trial as exhibits for the defense. As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance
When asked by the court why he did not present all of entered into a leasing agreement whereby LS Finance
these declarations when he was apprehended at the would lease the garage equipment and petitioner would
airport, his answer was that he was not asked to present pay the corresponding rent with the option to buy the
the declaration papers of his associates, and besides, he same. After the documentation was completed, the
does not understand English and he was not told to do equipment was delivered to Magno who in turn issued a
so. He also testified on cross-examination that the postdated check and gave it to Joey Gomez who,
reason he was going back to Hongkong bringing with unknown to the petitioner, delivered the same to Teng.
him all the money intended to be invested in the When the check matured, Magno requested through
Philippines was because of the fear of his group that the Joey Gomez not to deposit the check as he was no
"revolution" taking place in Manila might become longer banking with Pacific Bank.
widespread. It was because of this fear that he was
urged by his associates to come to Manila on July 8, To replace the first check issued, Magno issued another
1986 to bring the money out of the Philippines. set of six (6) post dated checks. Two (2) checks dated
July 29, 1983 were deposited and cleared while the four
The respondent judge, in his decision acquitting the (4) others, which were the subject of the four counts of
accused, stated: the aforestated charges subject of the petition, were held
momentarily by Teng, on the request of Magno as they
The factual issue for this Court to determine is whether were not covered with sufficient funds.
or not the accused wilfully violated Section 6 of Circular
No. 960. The fact that the accused had in his possession Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the
the foreign currencies when he was about to depart from monthly rentals, thus it pulled out the garage equipment.
the Philippines did not by that act alone make him liable It was then on this occasion that petitioner became
for Violation of Section 6. aware that Teng was the one who advanced the
warranty deposit. Magno with his wife went to see
What is imperative is the purpose for which the act of Corazon Teng and promised to pay the latter but the
bringing foreign currencies out of the country was done payment never came and when the four (4) checks were
the very intention. It is that which qualifies the act as deposited they were returned for the reason "account
criminal or not. There must be that clear intention to closed."
violate and benefit from the act done. Intent is a mental
state, the existence of which is shown by overt acts of a ISSUE: Can Magno be held liable for violation of B.P.
person. Blg. 22?

ISSUE: Did respondent judge err in acquitting the RULING: No, the element of "knowing at the time of
accused on the ground of absence of intent? issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in
RULING: No, the respondent-judge has shown gross full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
that to convict the accused for violation of Central Bank or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that the reason is inversely applied in this case. 
accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The
respondent ought to know that proof of malice or From the very beginning, petitioner never hid the fact
deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses that he did not have the funds with which to put up the
punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita. warranty deposit and as a matter of fact, he openly
intimated this to the vital conduit of the transaction, Joey
2. Magno vs. CA Gomez, to whom Magno was introduced by Teng. It
would have been different if this predicament was not
FACTS: Magno was in the process of putting up a car communicated to all the parties, he dealt with regarding
repair shop sometime in April 1983, but a did not have the lease agreement the financing of which was covered
complete equipment that could make his venture by L.S. Finance Management.
workable. While he was going into this entrepreneurship,
he lacked funds with which to purchase the necessary 3. Garcia vs. CA
equipment to make such business operational. Thus,
petitioner, representing Ultra Sources International FACTS: On May 11, 1995, which was within the
Corporation, approached Teng, Vice President of canvassing period during the May 8, 1995 elections, in
Mancor Industries for his needed car repair service the Alaminos, Pangasinan, Philippines, Election Officer
equipment of which Mancor was a distributor. Arsenia B. Garcia, et al. conspiring with, confederating
together and mutually helping each other, did, then and
Having been approached by petitioner on his there, willfully, and unlawfully decrease[d] the votes
predicament, who fully bared that he had no sufficient received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel,
funds to buy the equipment needed, Teng referred Jr. from 6,998 votes, as clearly disclosed in the total
Magno to LB Finance advising its Vice-President, Joey number of votes in the 159 precincts of the Statement of
Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the Votes by Precincts of said municipality, to 1,921, with a
pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could difference of five thousand seventy-seven (5,077) votes.
accommodate petitioner and provide him credit facilities.
RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of
The arrangement went through on condition that evidence, except Garcia who was convicted as follows:
petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to
thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces of Court pronounces her GUILTY beyond reasonable
equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. doubt, of the crime defined under Republic Act 6646,
Since petitioner could not come up with such an amount, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator
he requested Joey Gomez on a personal level to look for Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg.
a third party who could lend him the equivalent amount 881, considering that this finding is a violation of Election
of the warranty deposit, however, unknown to petitioner, Offense, she is thus sentenced to suffer an
it was Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS as maximum, but
the condition that the same would be paid as a short applying the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the
term loan at 3% interest. minimum penalty is the next degree lower which is SIX
(6) MONTHS; however, accused Arsenia B. Garcia is
not entitled to probation; further, she is sentenced to

24
 AB
suffer disqualification to hold public office and she is also Sometime after midnight of the same date, Eduardo
deprived of her right of suffrage. Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a
comic book with his friend Henry. Later, the accused
Garcia appealed before the CA and raised the various Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived.
errors of the appellate court in affirming the decision of These persons appeared to be drunk as they were all
the RTC. One of such errors is that the reduction of the happy and noisy. As the group saw the deceased
votes of candidate Pimentel was clearly not intentional or walking nearby, they started making fun of him. They
willful.
made the deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of
wood.
ISSUE: Can Garcia be held liable for violation of R.A.
No. 6646, Sec. 27(b)? Not content with what they were doing with the
deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly took a can of
RULING: Yes, generally mala in se felonies are defined gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and
and penalized in the Revised Penal Code. When the
poured its contents on the body of the former. Gabion
acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are
deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a told Pugay not to do so while the latter was already in
special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly the process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused
established with the other elements of the crime; Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of
otherwise, no crime is committed. him.

The ferris wheel operator later arrived and doused with

In crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are
not inherently immoral but become punishable only water the burning body of the deceased. Some people
because the law says they are forbidden. With these around also poured sand on the burning body and others
crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been wrapped the same with rags to extinguish the flame.
violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts
ISSUE: Should accused be held liable for the death of
are prohibited for reasons of public policy.
Miranda?
Sec. 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646 provides that any member of RULING: Yes, having taken the can from under the
the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers
engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring
who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes
its contents on the body of the deceased, this accused
received by a candidate in any election or any member
of the board who refuses, after proper verification and knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell
hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his
tampered votes must be considered guilty of an election notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed
offense. to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every
undesirable consequence arising from any act that may
Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in be committed by his companions who at the time were
se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed making fun of the deceased. We agree with the Solicitor
due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. Given General that the accused is only guilty of homicide
the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within through reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the
a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are Revised Penal Code, as amended. In U.S. vs. Maleza,
bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of the et. al., this Court ruled as follows:
law to punish unintentional election canvass errors.
However, intentionally increasing or decreasing the A man must use common sense and exercise due
number of votes received by a candidate is inherently reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through
another. fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such
results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no
During trial of this case, petitioner admitted that she was
one would have performed except through culpable
indeed the one who announced the figure of 1,921,
abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property,
which was subsequently entered by then accused Viray
in his capacity as secretary of the board.17Petitioner all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to
likewise admitted that she was the one who prepared the all manner of danger and injury.
COC (Exhibit A-7), though it was not her duty. To our
There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew
mind, preparing the COC even if it was not her task,
very well that the liquid poured on the body of the
manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry
in the COC. deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for
he would not have committed the act of setting the latter
As between the grand total of votes alleged to have been on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of
received by private complainant of 6,921 votes and doubt, it shall be conceded that as part of their fun-
statement of his actual votes received of 6,998 is a making he merely intended to set the deceased's clothes
difference of 77 votes. The discrepancy may be validly on fire. His act, however, does not relieve him of criminal
attributed to mistake or error due to fatigue. However, a responsibility.
decrease of 5,000 votes as reflected in the Statement of
Votes and Certificate of Canvass is substantial, it cannot Burning the clothes of the victim would cause at the very
be allowed to remain on record unchallenged, especially least some kind of physical injuries on his person, a
when the error results from the mere transfer of totals felony defined in the Revised Penal Code. If his act
from one document to another. resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the
instant case, he must be held responsible therefor.
Negligence or lack of foresight Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that
criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
1. People vs. Pugay committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
FACTS: The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate,
and the accused Pugay were friends. Miranda used to 2. Ivler vs. San Pedro
run errands for Pugay and at times they slept together.
On the evening of May 19, 1982, a town fiesta fair was FACTS: In August 2004, Jason Ivler and spouses,
held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were Evangeline and Nestor Ponce were involved in a
different kinds of rides and one was a ferris wheel. vehicular accident. Ivler was charged in Pasig MeTC

25
 AB
with two offenses which are, Reckless Imprudence Miranda, Quiapo, Manila, attended by a big crowd,
resulting in Slight Physical Injuries and Reckless President Roxas, accompanied by his wife and daughter
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to and surrounded by a number of ladies and gentlemen
Property. Ivler posted for bail for both cases. Petitioner prominent in government and politics, stood on a
Ivler was found guilty for the first offense and then he platform erected for that purpose and delivered his
moved to quash the second offense, citing double speech expounding and trying to convince his thousands
jeopardy. of listeners of... the advantages to be gained by the
Philippines, should the constitutional amendment
Pasig MeTC rejected his claim and he raised this matter granting American citizens the same rights granted to
to the RTC, where he posted for the suspension of the Filipino nationals be adopted.
second proceeding. Pasig RTC did not act on the
petitioner’s motion, went with the proceedings, cancelled He thought of two hand grenades which were given to
his bail and ordered his arrest. It was only a week later, him by an American soldier in the early days of the
when RTC issued its resolution on the matter of the liberation of Manila in exchange for two bottles of
rejection to suspend the proceedings. whiskey.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner’s constitutional right under He decided to carry out his plan at the pro-parity meeting
the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in held at Plaza de Miranda on the night of March 10, 1947.
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponce’s When he reached Plaza de Miranda, Guillen was
husband. carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag
which also contained peanuts. He buried one of the hand
RULING: Yes, under the Constitution, there is the grenades, in a plant pot located close to the platform,
protection afforded for the accused to shield him from and when he decided to carry out his evil purpose he
double jeopardy. Reckless Imprudence is a single crime, stood on the chair on which he had been sitting and,
its consequences on Persons and Property are material from a distance of about seven meters, he hurled the
only to determine the penalty. The two charges against grenade at the President when the latter had just closed
petitioner, arising from the same FACTS, were his speech, was being congratulated by Ambassador
prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Romulo and was about to leave the platform.
Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining
and penalizing quasi-offenses. General Castaneda, who was on the platform, saw the
smoking, hissing, grenade and, without losing his
It is important to note that the crime being punished in presence of mind, kicked it away from the platform,
this case is reckless imprudence and not the result along the stairway, and towards an open space where
thereof. the general thought the grenade was likely to do the
least harm; and,... covering the President with his body,
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down.
is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a
means to commit other crimes such that conviction or The grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the
acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent middle of a group of persons who were standing close to
prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its the platform.
various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to It was found that the fragments of the grenade had
Article 365. seriously injured Simeon Varela who died on the
following day as a result of mortal wounds caused by the
These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions fragments of the grenade.
as constitutionally impermissible under the Double
Jeopardy Clause. The Court grants the petition and ISSUE: Should the accused be found guilty only of
reverses the order (arrest and dismissal of second case). homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the
The court dismisses Criminal Case no. 82366 against death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical
petitioner Ivler on the ground of double jeopardy. injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva et al?

Aberratio Ictus RULING: No, in throwing the hand grenade at the

President with the intention of killing him, the appellant
1. People vs. Guillen acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all the
consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance with
FACTS: On the dates mentioned in this decision, Julio Art. 4, criminal liability is incurred by any person
Guillen y Corpus, although not affiliated with any committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
particular political group, had voted for the defeated different from that which he intended.
candidate in the presidential elections held in 1946,
Manuel A. Roxas, the successful candidate, assumed In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another
the office of President of the Commonwealth and should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of
subsequently President of the Philippine Republic. another act performed without malice. In order that an
According to Guillen, he became disappointed in act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that
President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem the neither malice nor intention to cause injury should
pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the intervene. However, where such intention exists, the act
presidential election campaign; and his disappointment should be qualified by the felony it has produced even
was aggravated when, according to him, President though it may not have been the intention of the actor.
Roxas, instead of looking after the interest of his country, 2. People vs. Adriano
sponsored and campaigned for the approval of the so-
called "parity" measure. Hence, he determined to
FACTS: On 13 March 2007, at around 8:00 a.m., Police
assassinate the President. Officer 1 Matthew Garabiles (POI Garabiles) and PO2
After he had pondered for some time over the ways and Alejandro Santos (P02 Santos), in civilian clothes, were
on their way to Camp Olivas, Pampanga, riding a
means of assassinating President Roxas, the opportunity
motorcycle along Olongapo-Gapan National Road.5
presented itself on the night of March 10, 1947, when at
a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de

26
 AB
While they were at Barangay Malapit San Isidro, Nueva FACTS: On June 1, 1895, the victims were asked to
Ecija, a speeding blue Toyota Corolla (Corolla) with plate bring the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended
no. WHK 635, heading towards the same direction, a wedding party. Nelson Tiempo drove the car with
overtook them and the car in front of them, a maroon Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the owner-type
Honda CRV (CRY) with plate no. CTL 957. jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the
group back to the party after parking the car at Lim’s
When the Corolla reached alongside the CRV, the house. When they reached the gate, they were met with
passenger on the front seat of the Corolla shot the CRV a sudden burst of gunfire. Respondents including
and caused the CRV to swerve and fall in the canal in Sabalones, armed with firearms, attacked and
the road embankment. Four (4) armed men then
ambushed individuals riding in two vehicles resulting to
suddenly alighted the Corolla and started shooting at the
the death of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo and injury
driver of the CRV, who was later identified as Cabiedes.
During the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, who was to three others.
standing near the road embankment, was hit by a stray The accused were identified as the gunmen.
bullet. The four armed men hurried back to the Corolla
and immediately left the crime scene. PO 1 Garabiles According to a witness presented, Sabalones was
and P02 Santos followed the Corolla but lost track of the implicated in the killing of Nabing Velez because of the
latter. slapping incident involving her father-in-law, Federico
Sabalones Sr. and Nabing Veles, which took place prior
Later, both Cabiedes and Bulanan died from fatal to the death of Junior Sabalones.
gunshot wounds: Cabiedes was pronounced dead on
arrival (DOA) at the Good Samaritan General Hospital The conclusion of the trial and the CA that the appellants
due to three (3) gunshot wounds on the left side of his killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
chest while Bulanan died on the spot after being shot in statement of Beronga and the testimony of Binghoy.
the head. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that
appellants believed they were suspected of having killed
ISSUE: Whether or not Adriano is liable for the death of the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected
Bulanan. his group to retaliate against them.
RULING: At the outset, Adriano had no intention to kill The RTC observed that “they went to their grisly
Bulanan, much less, employ any particular means of destination amidst the dark and positioned themselves in
attack. Logically, Bulanan's death was random and defense of his turf against the invasion of a revengeful
unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she was gang of supporters of the recently slain Nabing Velez.”
killed by a stray a bullet, was, by no means, deliberate.
Nonetheless, Adriano is guilty of the death of Bulanan ISSUE: Is this a case of aberratio ictus?
under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,23 pursuant
RULING: No, the case is not one of aberratio ictus but
to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal
one of error in personae (mistake of identity)
liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for
all the natural and logical consequences resulting Appellants likewise accuse the trial court of engaging in
therefrom. "conjecture" in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in this
case. This allegation does not advance the cause of the
While it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot appellants. It must be stressed that the trial court relied
Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate him. Bulanan' s on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the
death caused by the bullet fired by Adriano was the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that
natural and direct consequence of Adriano's felonious appellants did in fact commit the crimes. Even assuming
deadly assault against Cabiedes. that the trial court did err in explaining the motive of the
appellants, this does not detract from its findings, as
Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a affirmed by the Court of Appeals and sustained by this
felony although the wrongful act be different from that Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the
which is intended. One who commits an intentional appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen In any event, the trial court was not engaging in
or intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found in conjecture in so ruling. The conclusion of the trial court
the doctrine, 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the
mal causado ', or he who is the cause of the cause is the
wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial statement
cause of the evil caused.
of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer
Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that
Additional Notes:
appellants believed that they were suspected of having
killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they
 May treachery be appreciated in aberratio ictus? expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence,
upon the arrival of the victims' vehicles which they
Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing
we shall adhere to the prevailing jurisprudence Velez, appellants opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact that
pronounced in People v. Flora,30 where the Court ruled they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability.
that treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. In The Court has held that "mistake in the identity of the
Flora, the accused was convicted of two separate counts
victim carries the same gravity as when the accused
of murder: for the killing of two victims, Emerita, the
intended victim, and Ireneo, the victim killed by a stray zeroes in on his intended victim."
bullet. The Court, due to the presence of the aggravating Be that as it may, the observation of the solicitor general
circumstance of treachery, qualified both killings to on this point is well-taken. The case is better
murder. The material FACTS in Flora are similar in the
characterized as error personae or mistake in the identity
case at bar. Thus, we follow the Flora doctrine.
of the victims, rather than aberratio ictus which means
mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but
Error in Personae
hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.
1. People vs. Sabalones Praeter Intentionem

27
 AB
1. People vs. Albuquerque the morning, the bus was speeding on the highway in
Imus Cavite and one of the front tires bust, resulting in
FACTS: This case is an appeal of a previous decision of the vehicle to zigzag until it fell on the side of the road
the court that found Gines Alburquerque guilty of and turned upside down. Some of the passengers
homicide against Manuel Osma. managed to get out, except for 4 passengers (one of
them was Juan Bataclan). Those who were able to get
Albuquerque's daughter, Pilar had relations with Osma out called for help. After such time, ten (10) men came to
and bore a child. Alburquerque, who was suffering from their rescue, one of them carrying a lighted torch. These
paralysis at that time, wanted the two to get married and men presumably went near the vehicle, and the vehicle
he talked to Osma about this. upon contact with the lighted torch, caught on fire. This
resulted in the deaths of the four passengers still trapped
He presented himself one day at the office where the inside the bus. 
deceased worked and asked leave of the manager
thereof to speak to Osma. They both went downstairs. ISSUE:
What happened later, nobody witnessed. But the
undisputed fact is that on that occasion the appellant 1. What is the proximate cause of death of the four
inflicted a wound at the base of the neck of the passengers, the negligence of the driver,
deceased, causing his death. resulting in the overturning of the bus, or the fire
that burned the bus? 
After excluding the improbable portions thereof, the court 2. Is the owner of the bus criminally liable for the
infers from the testimony of the appellant that he resulting deaths of his passengers?
proposed to said deceased to marry his daughter and
that, upon hearing that the latter refused to do so, he RULING: Yes, the driver of the bus was liable for the
whipped out his penknife. Upon seeing the appellant's resulting deaths because due to his negligence, he failed
attitude, the deceased tried to seize him by the neck to warn the men to not bring the torch too close to the
whereupon the said appellant stabbed him on the face vehicle. Some passengers note that the driver and the
with the said penknife. Due to his lack of control of the conductor was walking to and fro the site, hence, they
movement of his arm, the weapon landed on the base of must have smelled and detected the spilled gas,
the neck of the deceased. resulting from the overturning of the bus. The coming of
the men with torch was to be expected because they
called for help. Since it was a rural area, they did not
ISSUE: Was Alburquerque guilty of homicide, even if his
have access to lamps or lanterns to light their way. The
intention was not to kill the victim? lighted torch was more accessible to them. The events
RULING: Yes, a person who performs a criminal act is that followed after the overturn of the bus was only
natural and logical. In this case, The proximate cause of
responsible for all consequences of said act, regardless
the deaths was the overturning of the bus. 
of his intention.

Although the court affirms that Alburquerque did not Proximate Cause: Acting first and producing the injury,
intend to kill the victim and his only intention was to either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
threaten the victim into marrying his daughter, due to his
each having a close causal connection with its
lack of control over his arm, he inflicted a fatal wound on
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
the victim, Art. 4 par. 1 states that criminal liability shall immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
be incurred by any person committing a felony, although probable result of the cause which first acted, under the
the wrongful act done be different from that which he circumstances that the person responsible for the first
intended. event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
The result is greater than the intention of the accused, moment of his act or default that an injury to some
which was to intimidate the victim into marriage. In his person might probably result therefrom. 
testimony the appellant emphatically affirmed that he
only wanted to inflict a wound that would leave a 2. People vs. Iligan
permanent scar on the face of the deceased, or one that
would compel him to remain in the hospital for a week or FACTS: On October 21, 1980 at around 2:00 am,
two but never intended to kill him, because then it would Esmeraldo Quinones Jr. and his companions. Zaldy Asis
frustrate his plan of compelling him to marry or, at least, and Felix Lukban were on the way home after attending
support his daughter. The appellant had stated this a fiesta dance. They passed by the accused, Fernando
intention in some of his letters to the deceased by way of Iligan, and his nephew, Edmundo Asis ang Juan
a threat to induce him to accept his proposal for the Macandog. Edmundo Asis pushed them, which
benefit of his daughter. That the act of the appellant in prompted Asis to punch him. The accused, Iligan, drew
his bolo and hacked Quinones Jr and missed. Quinones
stabbing the deceased resulted in the fatal wound at the
jr. and his group ran away but on the way back to
base of his neck, was due solely to the fact hereinbefore
Quinones Jr.’s house Iligan and his group caught up and
mentioned that appellant did not have control of his right hacked Quinones Jr’s head. Asis and Lukban ran away
arm on account of paralysis and the blow, although and when they came back to get Quinones Jr, found him
intended for the face, landed at the base of the neck. dead. 

Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of lack of The autopsy, however, showed that Quinones Jr. was
intention to cause so grave an injury as the death of the involved in a vehicular accident and was killed
deceased as well as those of his having voluntarily subsequently. The post mortem exam and the birth
surrendered himself to the authorities, and acted under certificate showed that Quinones Jr.’s death was due to
the influence of passion and obfuscation, should be “shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to a
taken into consideration in favor of the appellant. vehicular accident.”

Causation ISSUE: Was Iligan liable for Quinones Jr’s death, given
that it was not the hacking that killed him?
1. Bataclan vs. Medina
RULING: Yes, under Article 4 of the Revised Penal
FACTS: On September 13, 1952, A Medina Code, criminal liability shall be incurred "by any person
Transportation bus left Amadeo Cavite. At about 2:00 in committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act

28
 AB
done be different from that which he intended." Based on by tetanus. Javier died the following day. Urbano was
the doctrine that "el que es causa de la causa es causa then charged and later on found guilty for homicide.
del mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused), 27 the essential requisites Urbano filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial
of Article 4 are: (a) that an intentional felony has been based on an affidavit of Brgy. Capt. Soliven which stated
committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved that a typhoon swept Pangasinan, affecting the irrigation
party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of dam in the ricefields of San Fabian making it suitable for
the felony committed by the offender. 28 We hold that catching mudfishes. Brgy. Capt. Soliven saw Javier
these requisites are present in this case. catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals.

The intentional felony committed was the hacking of the ISSUE: Can Urbano be held liable for the death of
head of Quiñones, Jr. by Iligan. That it was considered Javier?
as superficial by the physician who autopsied Quiñones
is beside the point. What is material is that by the RULING: No, the case involves the application of Article
instrument used in hacking Quiñones, Jr. and the 4 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
location of the wound, the assault was meant not only to "Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) By any person
immobilize the victim but to do away with him as it was committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
directed at a vital and delicate part of the body: the head. done be different from that which he intended ..."
29 Pursuant to this provision "an accused is criminally
responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law
The hacking incident happened on the national highway and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
30 where vehicles are expected to pass any moment. therefrom." (People v. Cardenas, 56 SCRA 631).
One such vehicle passed seconds later when Lukban
and Zaldy Asis, running scared and having barely In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised
negotiated the distance of around 200 meters, heard wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo which
shouts of people. Quiñones, Jr., weakened by the Urbano used in hacking him. This incident took place on
hacking blow which sent him to the cemented highway, October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14,
was run over by a vehicle. 1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw
and muscle spasms. The following day, November 15,
Under these circumstances, we hold that while Iligan’s 1980, he died.
hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might not have been the
direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the latter’s
If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the
death. Proximate legal cause is defined as "that acting
appellant was already infected by tetanus germs at the
first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
time, it is more medically probable that Javier should
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural
have been infected with only a mild cause of tetanus
and continuous chain of events, each having a close
because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the
day after the hacking incident or more than 14 days after
final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury
the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time
as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
should have been more than six days. Javier, however,
acted, under such circumstances that the person
died on the second day from the onset time. The more
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily
credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground
was inflicted by the appellant, the severe form of tetanus
to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
that killed him was not yet present. Consequently,
injury to some person might probably result therefrom."
Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus
31 In other words, the sequence of events from Iligan’s
after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance
assault on him to the time Quiñones, Jr. was run over by
surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have been
a vehicle is, considering the very short span of time
infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days
between them, one unbroken chain of events. Having
before he died.
triggered such events, Iligan cannot escape liability.

3. Urbano vs. IAC The proximate cause of the victim's death was due to his
own negligence in going back to work without his wound
FACTS: Urbano went to his ricefield located at about being properly healed, and lately, that he went to catch
100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of Javier. He fish in dirty irrigation canals.
found the place where he stored his palay flooded with
water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had The rule is that the death of the victim must be the
overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds
canal to see what happened and there he saw Javier inflicted upon him by the accused. (People v. Cardenas,
and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was supra) And since we are dealing with a criminal
responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and conviction, the proof that the accused caused the
Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond
angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead
palay. A quarrel between them ensued. us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound
by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
Urbano unsheathed his and hacked Javier hitting him on between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his
the right palm of his hand, which was used in parrying death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign
the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed ran away to the crime. (People v. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038).
from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked
him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the back Impossible Crimes
portion of said bolo, causing a swelling on said leg.
When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his 1.  Intod vs. CA
daughter embraced and prevented him from hacking
Javier. FACTS: On February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod et. al went
to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez
On November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to their local Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with
hospital in a very serious condition. Javier had lockjaw them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.
and was having convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and
found that Javier’s serious condition was caused by Daligdig had a meeting with Dumalagan. He told
tetanus toxin. He noticed the presence of a healing Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed
wound in Javier's palm which could have been infected because of a land dispute between them and that
29
 AB
Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, further investigation. He was followed by Anastacio
he would also be killed. Alejo and the policemen. Bernabe denied the charge.
To extract a confession, Saladino repeatedly boxed and
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, kicked him in different parts of the body. Bernabe
Intod et al. all armed with firearms, arrived at continued denying his guilt. Saladino got a piece of
Palangpangan's. Mandaya pointed the location of wood, two inched thick and one yard long, and clubbed
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Intod et al. fired at him several times on the chest, abdomen and the back.
said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan Then he called on Alejo to take his turn. Alejo reluctantly
was in another city and her home was then occupied by whipped Bernabe four times with the branch of a tree,
her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room and then retired to the kitchen. Saladino again
when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the questioned his prisoner and as the latter would not admit
gunfire. his culpability, he repeated the severe beating, and tying
Bernabe’s wrists together with a rubber strap, made him
Intod and his companions were positively identified by stand on a chair, tied the strap to a beam in the ceiling
witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men and then pushed the chair from under Bernabe with the
left the premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the result that the latter was left hanging in the air. While in
witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and that position Bernabe was cudgeled by Saladino, with
we will come back if (sic) you were not injured" the wooden club, on the sides, armpits, stomach, hips
and back. It was at this juncture that policeman Plan
ISSUE: Is Intod liable under Art. 4(2) of the RPC? interceded for the victim saying, Stop now corporal.
Better bring him to your headquarters and there you will
RULING: Yes, the factual situation in the case at bar investigate him”. But Saladino ignored plea, and
presents a physical impossibility which rendered the resumed the maltreatment, loudly predicting that
intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And Bernabe would confess before noon. After Bernabe had
under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, remained suspended for five minutes, Saladino untied
such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. him, made him sit on a chair and urged him to
acknowledge his offense. As Bernabe persisted in his
Legal Impossibility vs. Factual Impossibility - Legal refusal, Saladino kicked the chair and Bernabe fell on
impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if the floor, even as Saladino pouncing on his captive
completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal booted him several times until the latter lay motionless
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where on the floor. “It seems he is dead,” Policeman Oaman
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an exclaimed. Saladino replied “No, he is only feigning
act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform death” and presently stepped on Bernabe’s throat and
the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the chest. Then Saladino let him alone for fifteen minutes,
intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting during which time Bernabe did not stir nor breathe. An
from the intended act does not amount to a crime. old man approaching Bernabe and taking his pulse said
that the man was dead.
Ex: Killing a person already dead falls in this category.
Suddenly realizing his predicament, Saladino ordered
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous two civilians to carry Bernabe down and told Alejo:
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his “shoot him now and we will say that he ran away”.
control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Complying with the corporal’s order Alejo shot Bernabe
four times with his carbine, after the latter had been laid
Ex: A man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of down flat on his stomach about thirty meters away from
another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and the house. Three days afterwards Bernabe was intered.
finds the pocket empty.
Saladino lost no time preparing his defense. On that
The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner same day, June 24, he swore before the assistant fiscal
shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, an affidavit stating that, while he was conversing with
although in reality, the victim was not present in said Pasion inside the house, Luis Bernabe was downstairs
place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his under the vigilance of Anastacio Alejo; that four shots
end. were suddenly heard; and that Alejo, it turned out, had
fired at Bernabe because the latter had attempted to
escape.

2. People vs. Saladino On the other hand Anastacio Alejo admitted having
whipped and shot Luis Bernabe upon orders of Saladino,
FACTS: In the night of June 23, 1948 Corporal Bartolo who allegedly backed his command to shoot by pointing
Saladino and Private Anastacia Alejo of the Philippine his pistol at Alejo. His attorneys also insist that Luis
Constabulary were resting in the house of Celso Abucay Bernabe was already dead when Alejo fired at the
in Paoay, Ilocos Norte, together with policemen Melchor corpse.
Quevedo, Wilfredo Osman and George Plan of that
municipality. They had gone on patrol duty to the barrio Of course obedience to the order of a superior official is
for the purpose of apprehending those who on a not an excuse where the order was not for a lawful
previous night had fired upon the dwelling. purpose. (People v. Bañaga 54 Phil. 247; People v.
Moreno 43 Of. Gaz. 4644)
About midnight they were suddenly awakened by cries
for help. They went down and were approached by one ISSUE: Whether or not Alejo is guilty for having
Felix Pasion who reported he had been robbed, one of assassinated Bernabe.
the robbers being Luis Bernabe. The next morning,
Saladino and Alejo, accompanied by the policemen RULING: No, Alejo may only be considered an
proceeded to the house of Luis Bernabe in Barrio Samac accessory to the assassination of Bernabe.
of San Nicolas same province. Having found the
suspect, they brought him, for questioning, to the Two eye-witnesses who declared for the prosecution,
residence of Felix Pasion in Barrio Singao same namely, policemen Quevedo and Oaman repeatedly
municipality. stated on the witness stand that after the maltreatment,
and before Bernabe was carried downstairs to be shot,
It was about ten in the morning. As Pasion reiterated his he had already expired. Policeman Jorge Plan, another
imputation, Saladino led Bernabe up the house for eye-witness confirming Alejo’s testimony declared that

30
 AB
when Bernabe lay flat on the floor and did not stir, an old Thereafter, Joseph Dyhengco talked to Baby Aquino and
man felt his pulse and pronounced him dead. was able to confirm that the latter indeed handed
petitioner a BDO check for ₱10,000.00 sometime in June
Although the medical expert asserted that death was due 1997 as payment for her purchases from Mega Foam.
to the loss of blood occasioned by the three shots that Baby Aquino further testified that, sometime in July
pierced the body of Bernabe. Alejo’s attorney-de-officio 1997, petitioner also called her on the phone to tell her
made a thorough analysis of such testimony, pointing out that the BDO check bounced. Verification from company
that the medical examination was superficial, because it records showed that petitioner never remitted the subject
took place a few moments before the burial when the check to Mega Foam. However, Baby Aquino said that
body was already in a “moderately advance state of she had already paid Mega Foam ₱10,000.00 cash in
decomposition”, and that the conclusion derived by said August 1997 as replacement for the dishonored check.6
expert from the amount of blood in the garments worn by
the corpse which he examined were not those worn at Generoso Capitle, presented as a hostile witness,
the time of the shooting; second because the cadaver admitted depositing the subject BDO check in his bank
had been embalmed and the stains on the clothing might account, but explained that the check came into his
have been produced by the embalming fluid that oozed possession when some unknown woman arrived at his
out; and third because in post-mortem wounds blood house around the first week of July 1997 to have the
comes out too from the blood vessels. (Angeles, Legal check rediscounted. He parted with his cash in exchange
Medicine Sec. 105) All of which raise, at least, a doubt for the check without even bothering to inquire into the
that Bernabe, was already dead when shot. Such doubt identity of the woman or her address. When he was
must be resolved in favor of appellant Alejo. informed by the bank that the check bounced, he merely
disregarded it as he didn’t know where to find the woman
From the foregoing it is plain that Bernabe having died who rediscounted the check.
as a consequence of the violent mauling by Saladino,
the latter must be declared guilty of assassination. Meanwhile, Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the National
Anastacio Alejo does not appear to have conspired with Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an
him, and is not liable either as principal or as accomplice entrapment operation with its agents. Ten pieces of
of the murder. But he is guilty as accessory after the fact ₱1,000.00 bills provided by Dyhengco were marked and
for having performed acts tending to conceal Saladino’s dusted with fluorescent powder by the NBI. Thereafter,
crime by making it appear that Bernabe had run away. the bills were given to Ricablanca, who was tasked to
pretend that she was going along with Valencia's plan.
3. Jacinto vs. People
On August 15, 2007, Ricablanca and petitioner met at
FACTS: Baby Aquino, handed petitioner Banco De Oro the latter's house. Petitioner, who was then holding the
(BDO) Check Number 0132649 postdated July 14, 1997 bounced BDO check, handed over said check to
in the amount of ₱10,000.00. The check was payment Ricablanca. They originally intended to proceed to Baby
for Baby Aquino's purchases from Mega Foam Int'l., Inc., Aquino's place to have the check replaced with cash, but
and petitioner was then the collector of Mega Foam. the plan did not push through. However, they agreed to
Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank meet again on August 21, 2007.
account of Generoso Capitle, the husband of Jacqueline
Capitle; the latter is the sister of petitioner and the former On the agreed date, Ricablanca again went to
pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of Mega petitioner’s house, where she met petitioner and
Foam. Jacqueline Capitle. Petitioner, her husband, and
Ricablanca went to the house of Anita Valencia;
Meanwhile, Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Jacqueline Capitle decided not to go with the group
Mega Foam, received a phone call sometime in the because she decided to go shopping. It was only
middle of July from one of their customers, Jennifer petitioner, her husband, Ricablanca and Valencia who
Sanalila. The customer wanted to know if she could then boarded petitioner's jeep and went on to Baby
issue checks payable to the account of Mega Foam, Aquino's factory. Only Ricablanca alighted from the jeep
instead of issuing the checks payable to CASH. Said and entered the premises of Baby Aquino, pretending
customer had apparently been instructed by Jacqueline that she was getting cash from Baby Aquino. However,
Capitle to make check payments to Mega Foam payable the cash she actually brought out from the premises was
to CASH. Around that time, Ricablanca also received a the ₱10,000.00 marked money previously given to her
phone call from an employee of Land Bank, Valenzuela by Dyhengco. Ricablanca divided the money and upon
Branch, who was looking for Generoso Capitle. The returning to the jeep, gave ₱5,000.00 each to Valencia
reason for the call was to inform Capitle that the subject and petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were
BDO check deposited in his account had been arrested by NBI agents, who had been watching the
dishonored. whole time.

Ricablanca then phoned accused Anita Valencia, a ISSUE: May accused be held liable for theft?
former employee/collector of Mega Foam, asking the
latter to inform Jacqueline Capitle about the phone call RULING: No, in this case, petitioner unlawfully took the
from Land Bank regarding the bounced check. postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same
Ricablanca explained that she had to call and relay the was apparently without value, as it was subsequently
message through Valencia, because the Capitles did not dishonored. Thus, the question arises on whether the
have a phone; but they could be reached through crime of qualified theft was actually produced.
Valencia, a neighbor and former co-employee of
Jacqueline Capitle at Mega Foam. The Court must resolve the issue in the negative.

Valencia then told Ricablanca that the check came from The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act
Baby Aquino, and instructed Ricablanca to ask Baby performed would be an offense against persons or
Aquino to replace the check with cash. Valencia also told property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and
Ricablanca of a plan to take the cash and divide it (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or
equally into four: for herself, Ricablanca, petitioner the means employed was either inadequate or
Jacinto and Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca, upon the ineffectual.
advise of Mega Foam's accountant, reported the matter
to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph Dyhengco. The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving the
P5,000.00 marked money, which she thought was the
cash replacement for the dishonored check, is of no

31
 AB
moment. The Court held in Valenzuela v. People that An attempted felony is defined thus:
under the definition of theft in Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, there is only one operative act of execution There is an attempt when the offender commences the
by the actor involved in theft ─ the taking of personal commission of the felony directly by overt acts, and does
property of another. not perform all the acts of execution which constitute the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
There can be no question that as of the time that his own voluntarily desistance.
petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega
Foam, she had performed all the acts to consummate The crime cannot be attempted murder. This is clear
the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of from the fact that the defendant performed all of the acts
accomplishment in this case. The circumstance of which should have resulted in the consummated crime
petitioner receiving the P5,000.00 cash as supposed and voluntarily desisted from further acts. A crime cannot
replacement for the dishonored check was no longer be held to be attempted unless the offender, after
necessary for the consummation of the crime of qualified beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is
theft. prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from
performing all of the acts which should produce the
Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, crime. In other words, to be an attempted crime the
petitioner’s act of receiving the cash replacement should purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign
not be considered as a continuation of the theft. At most, force or agency which intervenes and compels him to
the fact that petitioner was caught receiving the marked stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of
money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen the acts which should produce the crime as a
proof of her intent to gain. consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. If
he has performed all of the acts which should result in
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists
STAGES OF EXECUTION from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt. The
essential element which distinguishes attempted
Consummated Stages from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no
intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
1. US vs. Eduave agency between the beginning of the commission of
the crime and the moment when all of the acts have
FACTS: We are satisfied that there was an intent to kill been performed which should result in the
in this case. A deadly weapon was used. The blow was consummated crime; while in the former there is
directed toward a vital part of the body. The aggressor such intervention and the offender does not arrive at
stated his purpose to kill, thought he had killed, and the point of performing all of the acts which should
threw the body into the bushes. When he gave himself produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point
up, he declared that he had killed the complainant. by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.

There was alevosia to qualify the crime as murder if To put it in another way, in case of an attempt the
death had resulted. The accused rushed upon the girl offender never passes the subjective phase of the
suddenly and struck her from behind, in part at least, offense. He is interrupted and compelled to desist by the
with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the intervention of outside causes before the subjective
lumbar region and slightly to the side eight and one-half phase is passed.
inches long and two inches deep, severing all of the
muscles and tissues of that part. On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes the
subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the
The motive of the crime was that the accused was crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while
enraged at the girl for the reason that she had he was passing through the subjective phase. The crime,
theretofore charged him criminally before the local however, is not consummated by reason of the
officials with having raped her and with being the cause intervention of causes independent of the will of the
of her pregnancy. He was her mother's querido and was offender. He did all that was necessary to commit the
living with her as such at the time the crime here crime. If the crime did not result as a consequence it was
charged was committed. due to something beyond his control.

ISSUE: The only question is the precise crime of which The subjective phase is that portion of the acts
he should be convicted. It is contended, in the first place, constituting the crime included between the act which
that, if death has resulted, the crime would not have begins the commission of the crime and the last act
been murder but homicide, and in the second place, that performed by the offender which, with the prior acts,
it is attempted and not frustrated homicide. should result in the consummated crime. From that time
forward the phase is objective. It may also be said to be
RULING: As to the first contention, we are of the opinion that period occupied by the acts of the offender over
that the crime committed would have been murder if the which he has control — that period between the point
girl had been killed. It is qualified by the circumstance of where he begins and the points where he voluntarily
alevosia, the accused making a sudden attack upon his desists. If between these two points the offender is
victim from the rear, or partly from the rear, and dealing stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
her a terrible blow in the back and side with his bolo. voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been
Such an attack necessitates the finding that it was made passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but
treacherously; and that being so the crime would have continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated.
been qualified as murder if death had resulted.
That the case before us is frustrated is clear.
As to the second contention, we are of the opinion that
the crime was frustrated and not attempted murder. 2. Rivera vs. People
Article 3 of the Penal Code defines a frustrated felony as
follows: FACTS: Ruben Rodil was a taxi driver. He stopped
driving in April 1998 after his life was threatened by a
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the would-be rapist. He was given a citation as a Bayaning
acts of execution which should produce the felony as a Pilipino by ABS-CBN for saving the would-be victim. His
consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it wife worked as a manicurist. He lived with his wife and
by reason of causes independent of the will of the their three children in Brgy. San Isidro Labrador II,
perpetrator.

32
 AB
Dasmarinas, Cavite, near the house of Esmeraldo FACTS: Malou was a tenant of the Celestial Marie
Rivera and his brothers Ismael and Edgardo. Building. Malou occupies room 307 with her maid.

Timeline of Events: Malou was awakened by the smell of chemical on a

piece of cloth pressed on her face. She struggled but
At noon of May 2, 1998, Rodil went to a nearby store to could not move. Somebody was pinning her down on the
buy food. Edgardo mocked him for being jobless and bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to scream for help
dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the but the hands covering her mouth with cloth wet with
rebuked and hurled invectives at Edgardo. A heated chemicals were very tight. Still, Malou continued fighting
exchange of words ensued. off her attacker by kicking him until at last her right hand
got free. With this the opportunity presented itself when
At about &:30 p.m. on May 3, 1998, Rodil, along with his she was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she
three-year old daughter, went to the store to buy food then squeezed.
and to look for his wife. Momentarily, the Rivera brothers
emerged from their house and ganged up on Rodil. Malou did not see who his attacker was. The only thing
Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows and she had made out during their struggle was the feel of
he fell to the ground. In that helpless position, Edgardo her attacker’s clothes and weight. His upper garment
hit Ruben three times with a hollow block on the parietal was of cotton material while that at the lower portion felt
area. Esmeraldo and Ismael continued mauling Ruben. smooth and satin-like. He was wearing a t-shirt and
People who saw the incident shouted: "Awatin sila! shorts.
Awatin sila!" Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up.
Ismael threw a stone at him, hitting him at the back. Baleros Renato Jr. alias “Chito” is a visitor of Ansbert Co
When policemen on board a mobile car arrived, who does not have a request letter that will authorize him
Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house. to enter but still he managed to enter for the reason that
he told the guard he will soon be a tenant of the said
Ruben was brought to the hospital. His attending building.
physician, Dr. Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., signed a medical
certificate in which he declared that Ruben sustained The CIS found a gray bag in room 310 and it was
lacerated wounds on the parietal area, cerebral identified as belonging to Chito. The CIS opened the bag
concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper and pulled out its contents, among others, a white t-shirt
buttocks, multiple abrasions on the left shoulder and with a a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief, three
hematoma periorbital left.4 The doctor declared that the white T-shirts, an underwear, and socks.
lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight and
superficial and would heal from one to seven days. The The trial court rendered its decision convicting petitioner
doctor prescribed medicine for Ruben’s back pain, which of attempted rape. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
he had to take for one month.
Petitioner appealed before the SC.
ssThe RTC convicted the accused with attempted
murder. The CA thereafter affirmed the decision of the ISSUE: Whether or not, Chito is guilty of attempted rape.
RTC.
RULING: No, he is not guilty of attempted rape but he is
ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming the RTC’s decision? guilty of unjust vexation. Under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who
RULING: No, stated by Dr. Cagingin, the accused could has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman
under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using
have killed the victim had the hollow block directly hit his
force or intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of
head, and had the police not promptly intervened so that
reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the
the brothers scampered away. When the wound is not woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident, the Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article
crime is attempted. of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of rape directly by overt
Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the (3) brothers acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which
helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even should produce the crime of rape by reason of some
after he had already fallen to the ground; that one of cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
them even picked up a cement hollow block and desistance. Overt or external act has been defined as
proceeded to hit the victim on the head with it three some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
times; and that it was only the arrival of the policemen commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
that made the appellants desist from their concerted act preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being
of trying to kill Rodil. Although the accused claim that the
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
injury sustained was only superficial; the Court ruled that
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
the nature of the injury does not negate the intent to kill. necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.

The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Chito was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on
Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus: There his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private
is an attempt when the offender commences the part.
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should Verily, while the series of acts committed by the
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident petitioner do not determine attempted rape, they
other than his own spontaneous desistance. constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion
under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the
In the case at bar, petitioners, who acted in concert, Revised Penal Code.
commenced the felony of murder by mauling the victim
and hitting him three times with a hollow block; they Unjust vexation exists even without the element of
narrowly missed hitting the middle portion of his head. If restraint or compulsion for the reason that this term is
Edgardo had done so, Ruben would surely have died. broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material
3. Baleros vs. People harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person. That Malou, after the incident in question, cried

33
 AB
while relating to her classmates what she perceived to  Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a
be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for "subjective phase," or that portion of the acts
attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was constituting the crime included between the act
disturbed, if not distressed. which begins the commission of the crime and the
last act performed by the offender which, with prior
STAGES OF EXECUTION IN 
acts, should result in the consummated crime.
After that point has been breached, the subjective
RELATION TO SPECIFIC phase ends and the objective phase begins.32 It has
been held that if the offender never passes the
FELONIES subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely
attempted. On the other hand, the subjective phase
Theft is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes, for
in such instances, "subjectively the crime is
1. Valenzuela vs. People complete."

FACTS: The case stems from an Information charging Diño

petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy
Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft. On 19 May  Diño was decided by the Court of Appeals in 1949,
1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were some 31 years after Adiao and 15 years before
sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket Flores. The accused therein, a driver employed by
within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, the United States Army, had driven his truck into the
by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then port area of the South Harbor, to unload a truckload
manning his post at the open parking area of the of materials to waiting U.S. Army personnel. After he
supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an had finished unloading, accused drove away his
identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching truck from the Port, but as he was approaching a
Unit (RDU)," hauling a push cart with cases of detergent checkpoint of the Military Police, he was stopped by
of the well-known "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded an M.P. who inspected the truck and found therein
these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon three boxes of army rifles. The accused later
was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the contended that he had been stopped by four men
supermarket, and after five minutes, emerged with more who had loaded the boxes with the agreement that
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these they were to meet him and retrieve the rifles after he
boxes to the same area in the open parking space. had passed the checkpoint. The trial court convicted
accused of consummated theft, but the Court of
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a Appeals modified the conviction, holding instead that
taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the only frustrated theft had been committed.
parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon  In doing so, the appellate court pointed out that the
loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then evident intent of the accused was to let the boxes of
boarded the vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, rifles "pass through the checkpoint, perhaps in the
who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the belief that as the truck had already unloaded its
open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a cargo inside the depot, it would be allowed to pass
receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon through the check point without further investigation
reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot or checking."60 This point was deemed material and
to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. indicative that the theft had not been fully produced,
Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, for the Court of Appeals pronounced that "the fact
and the stolen merchandise recovered. determinative of consummation is the ability of the
thief to dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it
They were convicted by the RTC of the crime of were more or less momentary."
consummated theft. Before the Court of Appeals,  This court is of the opinion that in the case at bar, in
petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of order to make the booty subject to the control and
frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, disposal of the culprits, the articles stolen must first
he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the be passed through the M.P. check point, but since
articles stolen. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. the offense was opportunely discovered and the
articles seized after all the acts of execution had
ISSUE: Should the petitioners be guilty of frustrated theft been performed, but before the loot came under the
only? final control and disposal of the looters, the offense
cannot be said to have been fully consummated, as
RULING: No, there is no crime of frustrated theft it was frustrated by the timely intervention of the
under the Revised Penal Code. The Revised Penal guard. The offense committed, therefore, is that of
Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such frustrated theft.
fashion as to accommodate said rulings. Again, there is  Diño thus laid down the theory that the ability of the
no language in Article 308 that expressly or actor to freely dispose of the items stolen at the time
impliedly allows that the "free disposition of the of apprehension is determinative as to whether the
items stolen" is in any way determinative of whether theft is consummated or frustrated.
the crime of theft has been produced.
Flores
Elements of theft as explained in Valenzuela vs.
People  The accused therein, a checker employed by the
Luzon Stevedoring Company, issued a delivery
 Indeed, we have long recognized the following receipt for one empty sea van to the truck driver who
elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the had loaded the purportedly empty sea van onto his
Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be truck at the terminal of the stevedoring company.
taking of personal property; (2) that said property The truck driver proceeded to show the delivery
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with receipt to the guard on duty at the gate of the
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the terminal. However, the guards insisted on inspecting
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be the van, and discovered that the "empty" sea van
accomplished without the use of violence against or had actually contained other merchandise as well.65
intimidation of persons or force upon things. The accused was prosecuted for theft qualified by
abuse of confidence, and found himself convicted of
Subjective phase vs. Objective phase the consummated crime. Before the Court of
34
 AB
Appeals, accused argued in the alternative that he money. Hearing this, Severino told his daughter, Mary, to
was guilty only of attempted theft, but the appellate get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000.00 cash
court pointed out that there was no intervening act of (P5,000.00, according to the defense) and handed it to
spontaneous desistance on the part of the accused Appellant. Thereafter, Severino pleaded with the four
that "literally frustrated the theft." However, the Court accused to leave the premises as they already had the
of Appeals, explicitly relying on Diño, did find that the money but they paid no heed. Instead, accused
accused was guilty only of frustrated, and not
Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of
consummated, theft.
Severino after which the latter, his two daughters, and
Robbery Rodita, were herded to the office and kept there as
hostages. Then, Appellant told Severino to produce
1. People vs. Dio P100,000.00 so he and the other hostages could be
released. Severino answered that he could not do so
FACTS: At about noontime on July 24, 1971, Crispulo because it was a Saturday and the banks were closed.
Alega, a civil engineer by profession working at the
Sugar Construction Company, with a salary of more than The police and military authorities decided to launch an
P500.00 a month went to the Southeastern College, offensive and assault the place. This resulted in injuries
Pasay City to fetch his girlfriend, Remedios Maniti, a to the girls, Mimie and Mary Choco as well as to the
third year high school student thereat (pp. 55, 59, 63-64, accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary
11 1973). They proceeded to the Pasay City Public suffered a "macerated right lower extremity just below
Market. As they were going up the stairs leading to the the knee" so that her right leg had to be amputated. The
Teresa and Sons Restaurant, Remedios, who was was medical certificate described her condition as "in a state
about an arms-length ahead of Crispulo suddenly heard of hemorrhagic shock when she was brought in to the
the dropping of her folders and other things, being hospital and had to undergo several major operations.
carried by Crispulo. When she looked back, she saw a The court meted out a judgment of conviction and
man — later Identified as Danilo Tobias but still at large sentenced each of the accused "to suffer the penalty of
— twisting the neck of Crispulo, while the appellant was reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties
holding his (Crispulo's) two hands (pp. 56-57, 61, tsn., provided by law and to pay the costs.
Id.). The appellant and his companion tried to divest
Crispulo of his "Seiko" wrist watch, but Crispulo resisted Appellant contend that the lower court erred in holding
their attempt and fought the robbers. At this juncture, the that the crime charged was consummated and in not
man who was twisting the neck of Crispulo stabbed the holding that the same was merely attempted.
latter on the left side of his chest. Crispulo ran down the
Appellant insists that while the "giving" has been proven,
stairs followed by Remedies who shouted for help. When
the "taking" has not. And this is because neither he nor
he reached the front of the Pasay Commercial Bank he
his three co-accused touched the P5,000.00 given by
fell down and expired. At the time of his death, the
Severino nor the latter's wallet or watch during the entire
"Seiko" watch was strapped to his wrist. (pp. 57-61, tsn.,
incident; proof of which is that none of those items were
Id., pp. 7-9, tsn., Jan. 22, 1973).
recovered from their persons.
ISSUE: Whether or not Crispulo is guilty of robbery with
The defense contends that "The complete crime of
homicide.
larceny (theft/robbery) as distinguished from an attempt
RULING: We are constrained to agree with defense' requires asportation or carrying away, in addition to the
contention. The evidence adduced show that the taking, In other words, the crime of robbery/theft has
appellant and his companion were unsuccessful in their three consecutive stages: 1) the giving 2) the taking and
criminal venture of divesting the victim of his wrist watch 3) the carrying away or asportation and without
so as to constitute the consummated crime of robbery. asportation the crime committed is only attempted"
Indeed, as adverted to earlier, when the victim expired,
ISSUE: Whether or not, the crime of robbery was
the 'Seiko' watch was still securely strapped to his wrist
consummated.
(p. 59, t.s.n., Jan. 11, 1973). The killing of Crispulo Alega
may be considered as merely incidental to and an RULING: Yes, from the moment the offender gained
offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which possession of the thing, even if the culprit had no
however was not consummated because of the opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is
resistance offered by the deceased. Consequently, this complete.
case would properly come under the provision of Art.
297 of the Revised Penal Code which states that — Rodita, the lumberyard employee, testified that upon
demand by Appellant, Severino put P20,000.00 inside a
When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or paper bag and subsequently handed it to Appellant. In
frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person turn, accused Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and
guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion wristwatch of Severino. In respect of the P50,000.00
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, from Mayor Caram, Rodita declared that the Mayor
unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher handed the amount to her after she (the Mayor) had
penalty under the provisions of this Code. (Brief, pp. 5- opened the padlocked door and that she thereafter gave
6.) the amount to one of the holduppers. The "taking" was,
therefore, sufficiently proved (TSN, July 1, 1987, pp. 12-
2. People vs. Salvilla
13, 15-16, 27-31). The money demanded, and the wallet
FACTS: On 12 April 1986, a robbery was staged by the and wristwatch were within the dominion and control of
four accused (Bienvenido Salvilla, Reynaldo, and the Appellant and his co-accused and completed the
Simplicio Canasares) at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard at taking.
about noon time. When they entered the establishment,
The crime is consummated when the robber
they met Rodita Hablero an employee thereat who was
acquires possession of the property, even if for a
on her way out for her meal break and announced to her
short time, and it is not necessary that the property
that it was a hold-up. She was made to go back to the
be taken into the hands of the robber, or that he
office and there Appellant Salvilla pointed his gun at the
should have actually carried the property away, out
owner, Severino Choco, and his two daughters, Mary
and Mimie and told the former that all they needed was
35
 AB
of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. Basilio
that he should have made his escape with it. Borinaga was associated with Lawaan in the
construction of the corral. On the morning of March 4,
It is no defense either that Appellant and his co-accused 1929, Lawaan, with some of his men, went to Mooney's
had no opportunity to dispose of the personalities taken. shop and tried to collect from him the whole amount
That fact does not affect the nature of the crime, From fixed by the contract, despite the fact that only about
the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, two-thirds of the fish corral had been finished. Mooney
even if the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the refused to pay the price agreed upon at that time. On
same, the unlawful taking is complete (Reyes, Revised hearing this reply of Mooney, Lawaan warned him that if
Penal Code Annotated, Book II, 1981 ed., p. 594). he did not pay, something would happen to him, to which
Illegal Trespass Mooney answered that if they wanted to do something to
him they should wait until after breakfast, Lawaan then
1. People vs. Lamahang left with his men, and Mooney, after partaking of his
morning meal, returned to his shop.
FACTS: At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman
Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on
Delgado and C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the
caught Aurelio Lamahang in the act of making an store of a neighbor by the name of Perpetua Najarro. He
opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap had taken a seat on a chair in front of the Perpetua, his
goods. back being to the window. Mooney had not been there
At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping long when Perpetua saw Basilio Borinaga from the
inside with another Chinaman. The accused had only window strike with a knife at Mooney, but fortunately for
succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening the latter, the knife lodged in the back of the chair on
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, which Mooney was seated. Mooney fell from the chair as
who instantly arrested him and placed him under a result of the force of the blow, but was not injured.
custody. Borinaga ran away towards the market place. Before this
occurred, it should be stated that Borinaga had been
The RTC (affirmed by the Solicitor-General) ruled that heard to tell a companion: "I will stab this Mooney, who
the acts performed by Lamahang constituted attempted is an American brute." After the attack, Borinaga was
robbery. also heard to say that he did not hit the back of Mooney
but only the back of the chair. But Borinaga was
ISSUE: Did the RTC err in ruling that the acts performed
persistent in his endeavor, and hardly ten minutes after
constituted attempted robbery?
the first attack, he returned, knife in hand, to renew it, but
RULING: Yes, there is no doubt that in the case at bar it was unable to do so because Mooney and Perpetua
was the intention of the accused to enter Tan Yu's store were then on their guard and turned a flashlight on
by means of violence, passing through the opening Borinaga, frightening him away. Again, the same night,
which he had started to make on the wall, in order to Borinaga was overheard stating that he had missed his
commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of mark and was unable to give another blow because of
policeman Tomambing, did not develop beyond the first the flashlight. The point of the knife was subsequently,
steps of its execution. on examination of the chair, found embedded in it.

However, it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing ISSUE: Whether or not Borinaga is guilty of attempted
penal sanction, that an act objectively performed murder or frustrated murder.
constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is necessary
RULING: Although no exact counterpart to the facts at
to establish its unavoidable connection, like the logical
bar has been found either in Spanish or Philippine
and natural relation of the cause and its effect, with the
jurisprudence, a majority of the court answer the
deed which, upon its consummation, will develop into
question propounded by stating that the crime committed
one of the offenses defined and punished by the Code. It
was that of frustrated murder. This is true
is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if
notwithstanding the admitted fact that Mooney was not
carried to its complete termination following its natural
injured in the least.
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will The essential condition of a frustrated crime, that the
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. author perform all the acts of execution, attended the
attack. Nothing remained to be done to accomplish the
In this case, nothing shows that the purpose of the
work of the assailant completely. The cause resulting in
accused is to take possession, for the purpose of gain,
the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces
some personal property belonging to another. Therefore,
independent of the will of the perpetrator. The assailant
it may not be shown that the mere act of making an
voluntarily desisted from further acts. What is known as
opening on the wall of Tan Yu’s store is an attempt to
the subjective phase of the criminal act was passed. (U.
commit robbery.
S. vs. Eduave [1917], 36 Phil., 209; People vs. Mabugat
The Court thinks, and so holds, that the fact under [1926], 51 Phil., 967.)
consideration constituted attempted trespass to dwelling.
The homicidal intent of the accused was plainly
Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code states that
evidenced. The attendant circumstances conclusively
trespass to dwelling is committed when a private person
establish that murder was in the heart and mind of the
shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s
accused. More than mere menaces took place. The
will.
aggressor stated his purpose, which was to kill, and
Physical Injuries, Homicide, and Murder apologized to his friends for not accomplishing that
purpose. A deadly weapon was used. The blow was
1. People vs. Borinaga directed treacherously toward vital organs of the victim.
The means used were entirely suitable for
FACTS: Sometime prior to March 4, 1929, an American accomplishment. The crime should, therefore, be
by the name of Harry H. Mooney, a resident of the qualified as murder because of the presence of the
municipality of Calubian, Leyte, contracted with one Juan circumstance of treachery.

36
 AB
2. People vs. Kalalo ISSUE: Whether the appellants are guilty of murder or of
simple homicide in each of cases G.R. No. L-39303 and
FACTS: Prior to October 1, 1932, the date of the G.R. No. L-39304.
commission of the three crimes alleged in the three
informations which gave rise to the aforesaid three cases RULING: The acts thus committed by the said appellant
Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted homicide with no
and Isabela Holgado, the latter being the sister of the modifying circumstance to be taken into consideration,
deceased Arcadio Holgado and a cousin of the other because none has been established.
deceased Marcelino Panaligan, had a litigation over a
parcel of land situated in the barrio of Calumpang of the As to case No. 6860 (G.R. No. 39305), the evidence
municipality of San Luis, Province of Batangas. On shows that Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at
September 28, 1931, and again on December 8th of the Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing from the
same year, Marcelo Kalalo filed a complaint against the scene of the crime in order to be out of reach of the
said woman in the CFI of Batangas. By virtue of a motion appellants and their companions and save his own life.
filed by his opponent Isabela Holgado, his first complaint The fact that the said appellant, not having contended
was dismissed on December 7, 1931, and his second himself with firing only once, fired said successive shots
complaint was likewise dismissed on February 5, 1932. at Hilarion Holgado, added to the circumstance that
Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the land in question during the immediately before doing so he and his co-appellants
agricultural years 1931 and 1932, but when harvest time had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino
came Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the
thereon.
former, shows that he was then bent on killing said
Hilarion Holgado. He performed everything necessary on
On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother
his pat to commit the crime that he determined to commit
Arcadio Holgado, one of the deceased, decided to order
but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will,
the aforesaid land plowed, and employed several
laborers for that purpose. These men, together with either because of his poor aim or because his intended
Arcadio Holgado, went to the said land early that day, victim succeeded in dodging the shots, none of which
but Marcelo Kalalo, who had been informed thereof, found its mark.
proceeded to the place accompanied by his brothers
3. People vs. Trinidad
Felipe and Juan Kalalo, his brother-in-law Gregorio
Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia, who were later followed FACTS: The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish
by Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, mother and dealer based in Davao City. His helpers were Tan, a
aunt, respectively, of the first three.
driver, and the other deceased victim Marcial Laroa. On
19 January 1983, using a Ford Fiera, they arrived at
The first five were all armed with bolos. Upon their arrival Butuan City to sell fish. In the morning of 20 January
at the said land, they ordered those who were plowing it
1983 Soriano drove the Fiera to Buenavista, Agusan del
by request of Isabela and Arcadio Holgado, to stop,
Norte, together with Laroa and a helper of one Samuel
which they did in view of the threatening attitude of those
who gave them said order. Comendador. Tan was left behind in Butuan City to
dispose of the fish left at the Langihan market. He
Shortly after nine o'clock on the morning of the same followed Soriano and Laroa, however, to Buenavista
day, Isabela Holgado, Maria Gutierrez and Hilarion later in the morning.
Holgado arrived at the place with food for the laborers. While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano Trinidad, a
Before the men resumed their work, they were given
member of the Integrated National Police, assigned at
their food and not long after they had finished eating,
Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of said Isabela and Arcadio, Nasipit Police Station, and residing at Baan, Butuan City,
likewise arrived. Having been informed of the cause of asked for a ride to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which is on
the suspension of the work, Marcelino Panaligan ordered the way to Davao City. Trinidad was in uniform and had
said Arcadio and the other laborers to again hitch their two firearms, a carbine, and the other, a side-arm .38
respective carabaos to continue the work already began. caliber revolver. Soriano, Laroa, Tan, and Trinidad then
At this juncture, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo left Butuan on 20 January 1983 at about 5:20 P.M.
approached Arcadio, while the appellants Felipe Kalalo, bound for Davao City. Tan was driving the Fiera. Seated
Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, in turn, approached to his right was Soriano, Laroa and the accused
Marcelino Panaligan. At a remark from Fausta Abrenica, Trinidad, in that order. When they reached the stretch
mother of the Kalalos, about as follows, "what is between El Rio and Afga, Trinidad advised them to drive
detaining you?" they all simultaneously struck with their slowly because, according to him, the place was
bolos, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo slashing Arcadio
dangerous. All of a sudden, Tan heard two gunshots.
Holgado, while the appellants Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo
Soriano and Laroa slumped dead. Tn did not actually
and Gregorio Ramos slashed Marcelino Panaligan,
inflicting upon them the wounds enumerated and see the shooting of Laroa but he witnessed the shooting
described in the medical certificates Exhibits I and H. of Soriano having been alerted by the sound of the first
Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly gunfire. Both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his
from the wounds received by them in the presence of carbine in killing the two victims.
Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez, not to mention the
accused. The plowmen hired by Arcadio and Isabela all Tan then hurriedly got off the Fiera, ran towards the
ran away. direction of Butuan City and hid himself in the bushes.
The Fiera was still running slowly then but after about
The above detailed description of the wounds just seven (7) to ten (10) meters it came to a halt after hitting
enumerated discloses — and there is nothing of record the muddy side of the road. Tan heard a shot emanating
to contradict it all of them were caused by a sharp from the Fiera while he was hiding in the bushes.
instrument or instruments.
After about twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes, when a
passenger jeep passed by, Tan hailed it and rode on the
After Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan had
front seat. After a short interval of time, he noticed that
fallen to the ground dead, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo
took from its holster on the belt of Panaligans' body, the Trinidad was seated at the back. Apparently noticing Tan
revolver which the deceased carried, and fired four shots as well, Trinidad ordered him to get out and to approach
at Hilarion Holgado who was then fleeing from the scene him (Trinidad) but, instead, Tan moved backward and
inorder to save his own life. ran around the jeep followed by Trinidad. When the jeep
started to drive away, Tan clung to its side. Trinidad fired
37
 AB
two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. As (I stabbed him, he is just a visitor so he should not act
another passenger jeep passed by, Tan jumped from the like a king here in Tubao)." SPO1 Sulatre placed
first jeep and ran to the second. However, the Benjamin in jail. Benjamin kept on shouting: "Napatay
passengers in the latter jeep told him to get out not kon, napatay kon (I killed him, I killed him)."
wanting to get involved in the affray. Pushed out, Tan
crawled until a member of the P.C. chanced upon him In the meantime, PO3 Valenzuela brought Dean to the
and helped him board a bus for Butuan City. Doña Gregoria Memorial Hospital. The victim was
transferred to the Ilocos Regional Hospital (IRH) where
ISSUE: Whether or not Trinidad should be found guilty of Dean was examined and operated on by Dr. Nathaniel
attempted or frustrated murder. Rimando, with the assistance of Dr. Darius Pariñas.
Dean sustained two stab wounds in the anterior chest,
RULING: Trinidad can only be convicted of Attempted left, and a lacerated wound in the right elbow, forearm.
Murder. Trinidad had commenced the commission of the Had it not been for the blood clot that formed in the stab
felony directly by overt acts but was unable to perform all wound on the left ventricle that prevented the heart from
the acts of execution which would have produced it by bleeding excessively, Dean would have died from
reason of causes other than his spontaneous profuse bleeding.
desistance, such as, that the jeep to which Tan was
clinging was in motion, and there was a spare tire which The trial court convicted Benjamin of frustrated homicide.
shielded the other parts of his body. Moreover, the
wound on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is ISSUE: Is the Benjamin’s contention that he should only
that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not be convicted of less serious physical injuries because of
sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only Attempted the absence of his intent to kill valid?
Murder, the accused not having performed all the acts of RULING: No, if one inflicts physical injuries on another
execution that would have brought about death. but the latter survives, the crime committed is either
Martinez vs. CA consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no
intention to kill the victim or frustrated or attempted
FACTS: Dean Dongui-is was a teacher at the Tubao homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the
National High School, La Union. Petitioner Benjamin offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be
Martinez was the husband of Dean’s co-teacher, Lilibeth proved by evidence of the following: (a) motive; (b) the
Martinez. Benjamin eked out a living as a tricycle driver. nature or number of weapons used in the commission of
the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted
On October 28, 1998, Dean and his wife Freda filed a on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed;
complaint for damages against the spouses Martinez in and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Tubao, La injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.
Union. They alleged that in March 1998, petitioner, a
suitor of Elvisa Basallo, had been peddling false reports Benjamin insists that he had no intent to kill Dean.
that Dean and Elvisa had illicit relations; he even told However, the physical evidence contradicts his claim:
Freda that Elvisa was Dean’s mistress. This led to a
quarrel between Dean and Freda, and the latter was I. Between Benjamin and the victim, the former
hospitalized for her heart ailment. Dean requested had more hatred to harbor arising from the fact that the
Lilibeth to stop her husband from spreading lies, and she victim filed a lawsuit against him and his wife. Benjamin
replied that Elvisa had been her husband’s mistress. thus had more motive to do harm than the victim. By his
own account, he and Dean had a history of personal
At about 1:40 p.m. on February 3, 1999, Dean went to animosity.
the Tubao Credit Cooperative (TCC) office to pick up the
dividend certificate of his wife who was a member of the II. Benjamin was armed with a deadly 14½-inch
cooperative. He left the building and walked to his car bolo.
which was parked in front. As he did, he read the III. If it were true that Benjamin stabbed Dean
dividend certificate of his wife. Dean was about a step merely to defend himself, it defies reason why he had to
away from an L-300 van which was parked in front of the stab the victim three times.
building when petitioner, armed with a bolo, suddenly
emerged from behind the vehicle and stabbed him on Benjamin’s claim that Dean suffered only a single non-
the left breast. Dean instantly moved backward and saw life-threatening wound is misleading. Dr. Rimando, who
his assailant. Dean fled to the bank office and was able attended to and operated on Dean, testified that the
to gain entry into the bank. Petitioner ran after him and victim sustained three (3) stab wounds, two (2) of which
upon cornering him, tried to stab him again. Dean was penetrated his heart and lung, causing massive blood
able to parry the blow with his right hand, and the bolo clotting necessitating operation; the other lacerated
hit him on the right elbow. Dean fell to the floor and tried Dean’s his right elbow. The presence of these wounds,
to stand up, but petitioner stabbed him anew on his left their location and their seriousness would not only
breast. Dean managed to run to the counter which was negate self-defense; they likewise indicate a determined
partitioned by a glass. Unable to get inside the counter, effort to kill.
petitioner shouted at Dean: "Agparentomeng ka tatta ta
IV. From the manner the crime was committed,
talaga nga patayen ka tatta nga aldawen (You kneel
there can hardly be any doubt that intent to kill was
down because I will really kill you now this day)."
present. It has been clearly established that Benjamin
Meantime, SPO1 Henry Sulatre was at the Tubao Police ambushed Dean and struck him with a bolo. Dean was
Station, about 100 meters away. He was informed that a defenseless and unarmed, while Benjamin was deadly
fight was going on in the bank. He rushed to the place on armed.
board the police car. When he arrived at the scene, he
It cannot be denied that petitioner had the intention to kill
saw Barangay Captain Rodolfo Oller and his son Nicky
Dean. Petitioner performed all the acts of execution but
Oller. Nicky handed to him the bolo which petitioner had
the crime was not consummated because of the timely
used to stab Dean. He and Rodolfo brought petitioner to
medical intervention applied on the victim.
the police station. On the way, they passed by the
loading area of tricycles, about 40 meters away from the The Court held Benjamin guilty of frustrated murder.
police station. Petitioner shouted: "Sinaksak kon pare,
sangsangaili laeng isuna saan isuna to agari ditoy Tubao 4. Mondragon vs. People
38
 AB
FACTS: At about 5:00 in the afternoon of July 11, 1954, than 30 days. The FACTS as found by the Court of
while complainant Serapion Nacionales was opening the Appeals also show that the offended party drew his bolo
dike of his ricefield situated in Antandan, Miagao, Iloilo, and hit the petitioner on different parts of his body, and
to drain the water therein and prepare the ground for that the petitioner retreated and did not insist on hitting
planting the next day, he heard a shout from afar telling the offended party with his bolo. It may be assumed that
him not to open the dike, Nacionales continued opening the petitioner drew his bolo and hit the offended party
the dike, and the same voice shouted again, "Don't you with it only when the offended party had shown a defiant
dare open the dike." When he looked up, he saw Isidoro attitude, considering that the offended party himself had
Mondragon coming towards him. Nacionales informed a bolo, as in fact the offended party had also drawn his
appellant that he was opening the dike because he bolo and hit the petitioner with it, We consider that under
would plant the next morning. Without much ado, the circumstances surrounding the fight between the
Mondragon tried to hit the complainant who dodged the petitioner and the offended party the intention of the
blow. Thereupon, appellant drew his bolo and struck petitioner to kill the offended party was not manifest.
complainant on different parts of his body. Complainant
backed out, unsheathed his own bolo, and hacked The intent to kill being an essential element of the
appellant on the head and forearm and between the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, said
middle and ring fingers in order to defend himself. The element must be proved by clear and convincing
appellant retreated, and the complainant did not pursue evidence. That element must be proved with the same
him but went home instead. degree of certainty as is required of the other elements
of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be
The following day, the complainant was treated by Dr. drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to
Alfredo Jamandre, Municipal Health Officer of Miagao, prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt (People vs.
Iloilo, for the following lesions (Exhibit A): Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488).1

"1. Incised wound about 2-1/2 inches long and 1/3 We hold that the FACTS brought out in the decision of
inches deep cutting diagonally across the angle of the the Court of Appeals in the present case do not justify a
left jaw. finding that the petitioner had the intention to kill the
offended party. On the contrary, there are FACTS
brought out by the decision appealed from which
"2. Incised wound 1-1/2 inches long and cutting the bone indicates that the petitioner had no intention to kill,
underneath (3/4 centimeters deep) below the right eye. namely: the petitioner started the assault on the offended
party by just giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted
"3. Incised wound about 1 inch long at the lunar side of on the offended party were of slight nature, indicating no
the left wrist. homicidal urge on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner
retreated and went away when the offended party
"4. Incised wound about 3-1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch
started hitting him with a bolo, thereby indicating that if
deep at the left side of the lower part of the left arm.
the petitioner had intended to kill the offended party he
"5. Incised wound about 1/2 inch long at the back of the would have held his ground and kept on hitting the
left index, middle and ring fingers. offended party with his bolo to kill him.

"6. Incised wound about 1 inch long of the palmar side of The element of intent to kill not having been duly
the left thumb. established, and considering that the injuries suffered by
the offended party were not necessarily fatal and could
"Barring complication the above lesions may heal from be healed in less than 30 days, We hold that the offense
20 to 25 days." that was committed by the petitioner is only that of less
serious physical injuries.
xxx xxx xxx
5. People vs. Sy Pio
Also upon the evidence, the offense committed is
attempted homicide. Appellant's intention to kill may be FACTS: Early in the morning of September 3, 1949, the
inferred from his admission made in court that he would defendant-appellant entered the store at 511
do everything he could to stop Nacionales from digging Misericordia, Sta Cruz, Manila. Once inside he started
the canal because he needed the water. However, it was firing a .45 caliber pistol that he had in his hand. The first
established that the injuries received by the complainant one shot was Jose Sy. Tan Siong Kiap, who was in the
were not necessarily fatal as to cause the death of said store and saw the accused enter and afterwards fire a
complainant. shot at Jose Sy, asked the defendant-appellant, "What is
the idea?" Thereupon defendant-appellant turned around
ISSUE: Whether Mondragon is guilty of attempted
and fired at him also. The bullet fired from defendant-
homicide or serious physical injuries.
appellant's pistol entered the right shoulder of Tan Siong
RULING: We have carefully examined the record, and Kiap immediately ran to a room behind the store to hide.
We find that the intention of the petitioner to kill the From there he still heard gunshot fired from defendant-
offended party has not been conclusively shown. appellant's pistol, but afterwards defendant-appellant ran
away.
The FACTS as found by the Court of Appeals, in our
opinion, do not establish the intent to kill on the part of Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General
the petitioner. Rather, We gather that what happened Hospital, where his wound was treated. He stayed there
was that the petitioner and the offended party had a from September 3 to September 12, 1949, when he was
quarrel over the matter regarding the opening of the released upon his request and against the physician's
canal which would drain the water away from the land of advice. He was asked to return to the hospital for further
the petitioner, and because of this quarrel a fight treatment, and he did so five times for a period of more
between them took place. The fight started with the than ten days. Thereafter his wound was completely
petitioner first giving first blows to the offended party and healed. He spent the sum of P300 for hospital and
later he drew his bolo and inflicted on the offended party doctor's fees.
the injuries which the Court of Appeals found to be not
ISSUE: Did the defendant-appellant perform all the acts
necessarily fatal and which were certified by a
of execution necessary to produce the death of his
government medical officer that they would heal in less
victim?
39
 AB
RULING: In the cases of U.S. vs. Eduave, 36 Phil., 209, Abayan up the stairs. When they reached the second
People vs. Dagman, 47 Phil., 768 and People vs. floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the
Borinaga, 55 Phil., 433, this Court has held that it is not Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered
necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts Abayan’s room.
of execution necessary to produce the death of his
victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he has Upon entering the room, Orita pushed Abayan who hit
committed all said acts. In the case of People vs. her head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife,
Dagman, supra, the victim was first knocked down by a Orita undressed himself. He then ordered Abayan to
stone thrown at him, then attacked with a lance, and take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt.
then wounded by bolos and clubs wielded by the Then he pulled off her bra, pants, and panty.
accused, but the victim upon falling down feigned death, He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
and the accused desisted from further continuing in the mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in
assault in the belief that their victim was dead. And in the her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to
case of People vs. Borinaga, supra, the accused poke the knife to her. At said position, however, Orita
stabbed his intended victim, but the knife with which he could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis
committed the aggression instead of hitting the body of entered her as she kept on resisting.
the victim, lodged in the back of the chair in which he
was seated, although the accused believed that he had Orita then laid down on his back and commanded her to
already harmed him. In both these cases this Court held mount him. In this position, only a small part again of his
that of the crime committed was that of frustrated penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, Orita
murder, because the subjective phase of the acts had both his hands flat on the floor. Abayan took this
necessary to commit the offense had already passed; chance to escape.
there was full and complete belief on the part of the
She dashed out to the next room and locked herself in.
assailant that he had committed all the acts of execution
Orita pursued her and climbed the partition. When she
necessary to produce the death of the intended victim.
saw him inside the room, she ran to another room. Orita
In the case at bar, however, the defendant-appellant again chased her. She fled to another room and jumped
fired at his victim, and the latter was hit, but he was able out through a window.
to escape and hide in another room. The fact that he
Still naked, Abayan darted to the municipal building,
was able to escape, which appellant must have seen,
which was about eighteen meters in front of the boarding
must have produced in the mind of the defendant-
house, and knocked on the door. When there was no
appellant that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital
answer, she ran around the building and knocked on the
part of the body. In other words, the defendant-appellant
back door. When the policemen who were inside the
knew that he had not actually all the acts of execution
building opened the door, they found complainant naked
necessary to kill his victim. Under these circumstances, it
sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, the first
cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts of
policeman to see her, took off his jacket and wrapped it
execution had been completed. And as it does not
around her. When they discovered what happened, Pat.
appear that the defendant-appellant continued in the
Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the
pursuit, and as a matter of fact, he ran away afterwards
boarding house. They heard a sound at the second floor
a reasonable doubt exist in our mind that the defendant-
and saw somebody running away. Due to darkness, they
appellant had actually believed that he has committed all
failed to apprehend appellant.
the acts of execution or passed the subjective phase of
the said acts. This doubt must be resolved in favor of the The trial court convicted Orita of frustrated rape.
defendant-appellant.
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in declaring that the crime
We are, therefore, not prepared to find the defendant- of frustrated rape was committed by Orita?
appellant guilty of frustrated murder, as charged in the
information. We only find him guilty of attempted murder, RULING: Yes, the accused contends that there is no
because he did not perform all the acts of execution, crime of frustrated rape. The Solicitor General shares the
actual and subjective, in order that the purpose and same view.
intention that he had to kill his victim might be carried
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and
out.
enumerates the elements of the crime of rape:
Rape
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
1. People vs. Orita
under any of the following circumstances:
FACTS: Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman
1. By using force or intimidation;
student at the St. Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern
Samar. Ceilito Orita (Lito) was a Philippine Constabulary 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
(PC) soldier. unconscious and
In the early morning of March 20, 1983, Abayan arrived 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even
at her boarding house. Her classmates had just brought though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the
her home from a party. Shortly after her classmates had two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house. All
of a sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife to xxx xxx xxx
her neck. She then recognized Orita who was a frequent
Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man in
visitor of another boarder.
having sexual bodily connections with a woman (Black's
She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition, p. 193).
to go upstairs with him. Since the door which led to the
On the other hand, Article 6 of the same Code provides:
first floor was locked from the inside, Orita forced
Abayan to use the back door leading to the second floor. Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right — Consummated felonies as well as those which are
hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, Orita dragged frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
40
 AB
A felony is consummated when all the elements Although Primo Campuhan insisted on his innocence,
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are the trial court on 27 May 1997 found him guilty of
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs statutory rape, sentenced him to the extreme penalty of
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony death.
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of ISSUE: Is statutory rape consummated?
the perpetrator. RULING: No, the accused is only guilty of attempted
There is an attempt when the offender commences the rape. Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender
not perform all the acts of execution which should commences the commission of rape directly by overt
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
other than his own spontaneous desistance. which should produce the crime of rape by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
Correlating these two provisions, there is no debate that desistance. All the elements of attempted rape — and
the attempted and consummated stages apply to the only of attempted rape — are present in the instant case,
crime of rape. Our concern now is whether or not the hence, the accused should be punished only for it.
frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape.
People v. Dela Peña: labia majora must be entered for
The requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the rape to be consummated. Mere grazing of the penis on
offender has performed all the acts of execution which the victim’s vagina does not consummate rape.
would produce the felony and (2) that the felony is not
produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's A review of the records clearly discloses that the
will. prosecution utterly failed to discharge its onus of proving
that Primo's penis was able to penetrate Crysthel's
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the vagina however slight. Even if we grant arguendo that
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually Corazon witnessed Primo in the act of sexually
attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the molesting her daughter, we seriously doubt the veracity
essential elements of the offense have been of her claim that she saw the inter-genital contact
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the between Primo and Crysthel. When asked what she saw
offender, because he has performed the last act upon entering her children's room Corazon plunged into
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is saying that she saw Primo poking his penis on the
consummated. vagina of Crysthel without explaining her relative position
to them as to enable her to see clearly and sufficiently, in
We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation automotive lingo, the contact point. It should be recalled
of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any that when Corazon chanced upon Primo and Crysthel,
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is the former was allegedly in a kneeling position, which
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, Corazon described thus:
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is Antithetically, the possibility of Primo's penis having
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ breached Crysthel's vagina is belied by the child's own
because not all acts of execution was performed. assertion that she resisted Primo's advances by putting
her legs close together; 24 consequently, she did not
2. People vs. Campuhan feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy" about what
FACTS: Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)- Primo did to her. 25 Thus, she only shouted "Ayo'ko,
year old Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!" In cases where
second floor of their house. At the ground floor she met penetration was not fully established, the Court had
Primo Campuhan who was then busy filling small plastic anchored its conclusion that rape nevertheless was
bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer consummated on the victim's testimony that she felt
located at the second floor. Primo was a helper of pain, or the medico-legal finding of discoloration in the
Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As Corazon was inner lips of the vagina, or the labia minora was already
busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her gaping with redness, or the hymenal tags were no longer
daughter’s cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting Corazon to visible. 26 None was shown in this case. Although a
rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan child's testimony must be received with due
inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel consideration on account of her tender age, the Court
whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were endeavors at the same time to harness only what in her
already removed, while his short pants were down to his story appears to be true, acutely aware of the equally
knees. guaranteed rights of the accused. Thus, we have to
conclude that even on the basis of the testimony of
Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his Crysthel alone the accused cannot be held liable for
defense. He maintained his innocence and assailed the consummated rape; worse, be sentenced to death.
charge as a mere scheme of Crysthel's mother who
allegedly harbored ill will against him for his refusal to Lastly, it is pertinent to mention the medico legal officer's
run an errand for her.He asserted that in truth Crysthel finding in this case that there were no external signs of
was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back physical injuries on complaining witness' body to
when she suddenly pulled him down causing both of conclude from a medical perspective that penetration
them to fall down on the floor. It was in this fallen had taken place. As Dr. Aurea P. Villena explained,
position that Corazon chanced upon them and became although the absence of complete penetration of the
hysterical. Corazon slapped him and accused him of hymen does not negate the possibility of contact, she
raping her child. He got mad but restrained himself from clarified that there was no medical basis to hold that
hitting back when he realized she was a woman. there was sexual contact between the accused and the
Corazon called for help from her brothers to stop him as victim. 27 No medical basis to hold that there was sexual
he ran down from the second floor. contact between the accused and the victim.

Physical examination yielded negative results as Arson

Crysthel ‘s hymen was intact.
1. US vs. Valdes
41
 AB
FACTS: Between 8:00am and 9:00am of April 28, 1918, kept quiet with his head bowed down. Fifteen minutes
when M.D. Lewin was absent from the house in which he later, the men left going towards the Entomology wing.
was living with his family, Mrs. Auckback, who appeared
to be a resident of the neighborhood, called Mrs. Lewin The deceased Marlon Villanueva was 'last seen alive by
and told her that there was smoke going from the lower Joey Atienza at 7:00 in the evening of 13 January 2006,
floor of their house. from whom he borrowed the shoes he wore at the
initiation right. Marlon told Joey that it was his "finals"
As soon as the smoke was brought to her attention, Mrs. night.
Lewin ordered Paulino Banal to look for the fire, as he
did, and he found, soaked with kerosene oil and placed On January 13, 2006 at around 8:30 to 9:00 o'clock in
between a post of the house and a partition of the the evening, Susan Ignacio saw more than twenty (20)
entresol (or mezzanine), a piece of a jute sack and a rag persons arrive at the Villa Novaliches Resort onboard a
which were burning. jeepney. She estimated the ages of these persons to be
between 20 to 30 years old. Three (3) persons riding a
At that moment, Valdes was in the entresol, engaged in single motorcycle likewise arrived at the resort.
his work of cleaning, while the other defendant Hugo
Labarro was cleaning the horses kept at the place. Ignacio saw about fifteen (15) persons gather on top of
the terrace at the resort who looked like they were
On the same morning of the occurrence, the police praying. Later that evening, at least three (3) of these
arrested Valdes and Labarro, having been called for the persons went to her store to buy some items. She did
purpose by telephone. Valdes, after his arrest admitted not know their names but could identity [sic] their faces.
before several policemen that it was he who had set the After she was shown colored photographs, she pointed
fire to the sack and the rag, which had been noticed on to the man later identified as Herald Christopher
the date mentioned, and he also who had started the Braseros. She also pointed out the man later identified
several other fires which had occurred in said house on as Gregorio Sibal, Jr.
previous days; that he had performed such acts through
the inducement of Labarro, for they felt resentment Donato Magat, a tricycle driver plying the route of
against, or had had trouble with, their masters, and that, Pansol, Calamba City, testified that around 3:00 o'clock
as he and Labarro were friends, he had acted as he did in the morning of January 14, 2006, he was waiting for
under the promise on Labarro's part to give him a peso passengers at the corner of Villa Novaliches Resort
for each such fire that he should start. when a man approached him and told him that someone
inside the resort needed a ride. Magat then went to the
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused has committed the resort and asked the two (2) men standing by the gate
crime of frustrated arson. who will be riding his tricycle.

RULING: Yes, the accused has committed the crime of The four (4) men boarded his tricycle but Magat noticed
frustrated arson. The crime is classified only as that when he touched the body of the man who was
frustrated arson, inasmuch as the defendant performed being carried, it felt cold. The said man looked very weak
all the acts conducive to the burning of said house, but like a vegetable.
nevertheless, owing to causes independent of his will,
the criminal act which he intended was not produced. Seferino Espina y Jabay testified that he worked as a
The offense committed cannot be classified as security guard at the J.P. Rizal Hospital and was
consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited assigned at the emergency room. At around 3:00 o'clock
house, for the reason that no part of the building had yet in the early morning of January 14, 2006, he was with
commenced to burn, although, as the piece of sack and another security guard, Abelardo Natividad and hospital
the rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near helper Danilo Glindo a.k.a. Gringo, when a tricycle
the partition of the entresol, the partition might have arrived at the emergency room containing four (4)
started to burn, had the fire not been put out on time. passengers, excluding the driver. He was an arm's
length away from said tricycle. He identified two of the
passengers thereof as appellants Dungo and Sibal.
CONSPIRACY Espina said he and Glinda helped the passengers
unload a body inside the tricycle and brought it to the
1. Dungo vs. People emergency room.

FACTS: Marlon Villanueva is a neophyte of Alpha Phi Afterwards, Espina asked the two meq for identification
Omega, as testified by his roommate Joey Atienza. cards. The latter replied that they did not bring with them
any I.D. or wallet.s Instead of giving their true names, the
At around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of January 13, appellants listed down their names in the hospital
2006, Sunga was staying at their tambayan, talking to logbook as Brandon Gonzales y Lanzon and Jericho
her organization mates. Three men were seated two Paril y Rivera. Espina then told the two men not to leave,
meters way from her. She identified two of the men as not telling them that they secretly called the police to
appellants Sibal and Dungo, while she did not know the report the incident which was their standard operating
third man. The three men were wearing black shirts with procedure when a dead body was brought to the
the seal of the Alpha Phi Omega. hospital.

Later at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, two more men Dr. Ramon Masilungan, who was then the attending
coming from the entomology wing arrived and physician at the emergency room, observed that Marlon
approached the three men. Among the men who just was motionless, had no heartbeat and already cyanotic.
arrived was the victim, Marlon Villanueva. One of the
men wearing black APO shirts handed over to the two Dr. Masilungan tried to revive Marlon for about 15 to 20
fraternity neophytes some money and told the men minutes. However, the latter did not respond to
"Mamalengke na kayo." He later took back the money resuscitation and was pronounced dead. Dr. Masilungan
and said, "Huwag na, kami na lang." noticed a big contusion hematoma on the left side of the
victim's face and several injuries on his arms and legs.
One of the men wearing a black APO shirt, who was He further attested that Marlon's face was already
later identified as appellant Dungo, stood up and asked cyanotic.
Marlon if the latter already reported to him, and asked
him why he did not report to him when he was just at the When Dr. Masilungan pulled down Marlon's pants, he
tambayan. Dungo then continuously punched the victim saw a large contusion on both legs which extended from
on his arm. This went on for five minutes. Marlon just
42
 AB
the upper portion of his thigh down to the couplexial Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the
portion or the back of the knee. crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.106
Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of
Due to the nature, extent and location of Marlon's the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven
injuries, Dr. Masilungan opined that he was a victim of by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during
hazing. Dr. Masilungan is familiar with hazing injuries, the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the
having undergone hazing when he was a student and acts therein.
also because of his experience treating victims of hazing
incidents.  Aside from inducing Villanueva to attend the
initiation rites and their presence during the hazing,
Dr. Roy Camarillo, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP the petitioners’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable
Crime Laboratory in Region IV, Camp Vicente Lim, doubt by the sequence of circumstantial evidence
Canlubang, Calamba City, testified that he performed an presented by the prosecution. Their involvement in
autopsy on the cadaver of the victim on January 14j the hazing of Villanueva is not merely based on
2006; that the victim's cause of death was blunt head prima facie evidence but was also established by
trauma. From 1999 to 2006, he was able to conduct circumstantial evidence.
post-mortem examination of the two (2) persons whose
deaths were attributed to hazing. These two (2) persons While it is established that nothing less than proof
sustained multiple contusions and injuries on different beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction,
parts of their body, particularly on the buttocks, on both this exacting standard does not preclude resort to
upper and lower extremities. Both persons died of brain circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not
hemorrhage. Correlating these two cases to the injuries available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non
found on the victim's body, Dr. Camarillo attested that
to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable
the victim, Marlon Villanueva, sustained similar injuries
doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the
to those two (2) persons. Based on the presence of
multiple injuries and contusions on his body, he opined prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial
that these injuries were hazing-related. evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually
committed in secret and under conditions where
ISSUE: Whether or not herein accused should be held concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is
liable as conspirators? insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of
vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or
RULING: secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.
Needless to state, the crime of hazing is shrouded in
 A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come secrecy. Fraternities and sororities, especially the Greek
to an agreement concerning the commission of a organizations, are secretive in nature and their members
felony and decide to commit it. To determine are reluctant to give any information regarding initiation
conspiracy, there must be a common design to rites. The silence is only broken after someone has been
commit a felony. The overt act or acts of the injured so severely that medical attention is required. It is
accused may consist of active participation in the only at this point that the secret is revealed and the
actual commission of the crime itself or may consist
activities become public. Bearing in mind the
of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving
them to execute or implement the criminal plan. concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for
the prosecution to resort to the presentation of
It need not be shown that the parties actually came circumstantial evidence to prove it.
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and
The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the
pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may
conviction of an accused through circumstantial
be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred
from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken evidence require the existence of the following
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2)
whole. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the
the accomplishment of a particular purpose of combination of all circumstances produces a conviction
conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.
 Who may be held liable for the crime of hazing?
The common design of offenders is to haze the victim. (Sec. 4, RA No. 8049) – Any person who commits
Some of the overt acts that could be committed by the the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with
offenders would be to (1) plan the hazing activity as a Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes
requirement of the victim's initiation to the fraternity; (2) of persons who are held liable as principals and
induce the victim to attend the hazing; and (3) actually accomplices.
participate in the infliction of physical injuries.
The first class of principals would be the actual
In this case, there was prima facie evidence of the participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to
petitioners' participation in the hazing because of their hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any
presence in the venue. As correctly held by the RTC, the physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and
presence of Dungo and Sibal during the hazing at Villa members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who
Novaliches Resort was established by the testimony of actually participated in the infliction of physical harm
Ignacio. She testified that she saw Sibal emerge from shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence
the resort and approach her store. of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence
of actual participation, unless he prevented the
The testimony of Ignacio was direct and straightforward. commission of the acts punishable herein.
Her testimony was given great weight because she was
a disinterested and credible witness. The prosecution The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the
indubitably established the presence of Dungo and Sibal extent of injury inflicted to the victim. The penalties
during the hazing. Such gave rise to the prima facie appear to be similar to that of homicide, serious physical
evidence of their actual participation in the hazing of injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight physical
Villanueva. They were given an opportunity to rebut and injuries under the RPC, with the penalties for hazing
overcome the prima facie evidence of the prosecution by increased one degree higher. Also, the law provides
proving that they prevented the commission of the several circumstances which would aggravate the
hazing, yet they failed to do so. imposable penalty.
43
 AB
Curiously, although hazing has been defined as punched Julian in the face. Elisa shouted: "Tama na.
consisting of those activities involving physical or Tama na." Edmar and Julian ignored her and traded fist
psychological suffering or injury, the penalties for hazing blows until they reached Aling Sotera’s store at the end
only covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the of the street, about twelve to fifteen meters away from
only psychological injury recognized would be causing Elisa’s store.
insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim only
sustained physical injuries which did not incapacitate For his part, Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile of
him, there is still a prescribed penalty. hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and Julian
swapped punches. Joselito tried to placate the
The second class of principals would be the officers, protagonists to no avail. Joselito’s intervention
former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, apparently did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled out his
fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. knife with his right hand and stepped down from his
Although these planners were not present when the acts perch. He placed his left arm around Joselito’s neck, and
constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be stabbed the latter. Ronnie and the appellant, who were
liable as principals. The provision took in consideration across the street, saw their gangmate Odilon stabbing
the non-resident members of the organization, such as the victim and decided to join the fray. They pulled out
their former officers or alumni. their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed Joselito.
Elisa could not tell how many times the victim was
The third class of principals would be the officers or stabbed or what parts of his body were hit by whom. The
members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority victim fell in the canal. Odilon and the appellant fled,
who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by while Ronnie went after Julian and tried to stab him.
inducing the victim to be present thereat. These officers Julian ran for dear life. When he noticed that Ronnie was
or members are penalized, not because of their direct no longer running after him, Julian stopped at E.
participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their Rodriguez Road and looked back. He saw Ronnie pick
indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the up a piece of hollow block and with it bashed Joselito’s
victim to attend the hazing. head. Not content, Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle
and struck Joselito once more. Ronnie then fled from the
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or scene. Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to
sorority's adviser who was present when the acts Joselito’s house and informed his wife and brother of the
constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take incident.
action to prevent them from occurring. The liability of the
adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the The appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove
hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same. that he conspired with Ronnie and Odilon in stabbing the
victim to death. He contends that for one to be a
The last class of principals would be the parents of the conspirator, his participation in the criminal resolution of
officers or members of the fraternity, group, or another must either precede or be concurrent with the
organization. The hazing must be held in the home of criminal acts. He asserts that even if it were true that he
one of the officers or members. The parents must have was present at the situs criminis and that he stabbed the
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes victim, it was Odilon who had already decided, and in
and failed to take any action to avoid the same from fact fatally stabbed the victim. He could not have
occurring. conspired with Odilon as the incident was only a chance
encounter between the victim, the appellant and his co-
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of accused. In the absence of a conspiracy, the appellant
hazing. The school authorities, including faculty cannot be held liable as a principal by direct
members, who consented to the hazing or who have participation. Elisa could not categorically and positively
actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to assert as to what part of the victim’s body was hit by
prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as whom, and how many times the victim was stabbed by
accomplices. Likewise, the owner of the place where the the appellant. He asserts that he is merely an
hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice to the accomplice and not a principal by direct participation.
crime. The owner of the place shall be liable when he
has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that
and he failed to take any steps to stop the same. there was conspiracy anent the assailed incident.
Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of
hazing, the law provides that any person charged with RULING: There is conspiracy when two or more persons
the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
circumstance that there was no intention to commit so Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must
grave a wrong. Also, the framers of the law intended that be proved separately from and with the same quantum
the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be
hazing. proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and
concealment are essential features of a successful
2. People vs. Aguilos conspiracy. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the
FACTS: On February 5, 1988, at around 11:30 p.m., crime, showing that they had acted with a common
Elisa Rolan was inside their store at 613 Nueve de purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is
Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City, waiting for her proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
husband to arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
were drinking beer. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba object, each doing a part so that their combined acts,
arrived at the store. Joselito and Julian invited them to though apparently independent of each other, were, in
join their drinking spree, and although already drunk, the fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness
two newcomers obliged. of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not
In the course of their drinking, the conversation turned know the identities of the other offenders, and even
into a heated argument. Edmar annoyed Julian, and the though he is not aware of all the details of the plan of
latter was peeved. An altercation between the two operation or was not in on the scheme from the
ensued. Elisa pacified the protagonists and advised beginning. One need only to knowingly contribute his
them to go home as she was already going to close up. efforts in furtherance of it. One who joins a criminal
Edmar and Odilon left the store. Joselito and Julian were conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal
also about to leave, when Edmar and Odilon returned, designs of his co-conspirators. If conspiracy is
blocking their way. Edmar took off his eyeglasses and established, all the conspirators are liable as co-
principals regardless of the manner and extent of their
44
 AB
participation since in contemplation of law, the act of one stabbed the hapless victim. Odilon and the appellant fled
would be the act of all. Each of the conspirators is the from the scene together, while Ronnie went after Julian.
agent of all the others. When he failed to overtake and collar Julian, Ronnie
returned to where Joselito fell and hit him with a hollow
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of block and a broken bottle. Ronnie then hurriedly left. All
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the appellant
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably
The mere presence of an accused at the situs of the show that they conspired to kill the victim.
crime will not suffice; mere knowledge, acquiescence or
approval of the act without cooperation or agreement to The victim died because of multiple stab wounds inflicted
cooperate on the part of the accused is not enough to by two or more persons. There is no evidence that
make him a party to a conspiracy. There must be before the arrival of Ronnie and the appellant at the situs
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to criminis, the victim was already dead. It cannot thus be
the furtherance of the common design and purpose. argued that by the time the appellant and Ronnie joined
Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an Odilon in stabbing the victim, the crime was already
appreciable period prior to the occurrence. From the consummated.
legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the
purpose and were united in its execution. As a rule, the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the victim; hence,
concurrence of wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, all of them are criminally liable for the latter’s death. The
may be deduced from the evidence of facts and appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal
circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the by direct participation.
parties cooperated and labored to the same end.
Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with
Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is
homicide or murder, they may be held criminally liable as nevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct
principals by direct participation if they perform overt acts participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him
which mediately or immediately cause or accelerate the cooperated in bringing about and accelerated the death
death of the victim, applying Article 4, paragraph 1 of the of the victim or contributed materially thereto.
Revised Penal Code:
3. People vs. Larranaga
Art. 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be
incurred: FACTS: On the night of July 16, 1997, sisters Marijoy
and Jacqueline Chiong, who lived in Cebu City, failed to
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although come home on the expected time. It was raining hard
the wrongful act done be different from that which he and Mrs. Thelma Chiong thought her daughters were
intended. simply having difficulty getting a ride. Thus, she
instructed her sons, Bruce and Dennis, to fetch their
In such a case, it is not necessary that each of the sisters. They returned home without Marijoy and
separate injuries is fatal in itself. It is sufficient if the Jacqueline. Mrs. Chiong was not able to sleep that night.
injuries cooperated in bringing about the victim’s death. Immediately, at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, her entire
Both the offenders are criminally liable for the same family started the search for her daughters, but there
crime by reason of their individual and separate overt was no trace of them. Thus, the family sought the
criminal acts. Absent conspiracy between two or more assistance of the police who continued the search. But
offenders, they may be guilty of homicide or murder for still, they could not find Marijoy and Jacqueline.
the death of the victim, one as a principal by direct
participation, and the other as an accomplice, under Meanwhile, in the morning of July 18, 1997, a certain
Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code: Rudy Lasaga reported to the police that a young woman
was found dead at the foot of a cliff in Tan-awan, Carcar,
Art. 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the persons Cebu. Officer-in-Charge Arturo Unabia and three other
who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the policemen proceeded to Tan-awan and there, they found
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous a dead woman lying on the ground. Attached to her left
acts. wrist was a handcuff. Her pants were torn, her orange t-
shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled
To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements down. Her face and neck were covered with masking
must concur: (a) the community of criminal design; that tape.
is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; On July 19, 1996, upon hearing the news about the dead
(b) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts woman, Mrs. Chiong's son Dennis and other relatives
that are not indispensable to the commission of the proceeded to the Tupaz Funeral Parlor at Carcar, Cebu
crime. Accomplices come to know about the criminal to see the body. It was Marijoy dressed in the same
resolution of the principal by direct participation after the orange shirt and maong pants she wore when she left
principal has reached the decision to commit the felony home on July 16, 1997. Upon learning of the tragic
and only then does the accomplice agree to cooperate in reality, Mrs. Chiong became frantic and hysterical. She
its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the could not accept that her daughter would meet such a
crime should be committed; they merely assent to the gruesome fate.
plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate
in its accomplishment. However, where one cooperates On May 8, 1998, or after almost ten months, the mystery
in the commission of the crime by performing overt acts that engulfed the disappearance of Marijoy and
which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a Jacqueline was resolved. Rusia, bothered by his
principal by direct participation, and not merely an conscience and recurrent nightmares, admitted before
accomplice. the police having participated in the abduction of the
sisters. He agreed to re-enact the commission of the
In this case, Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab crimes.
the victim. The appellant and Ronnie were on the side of
the street. However, while Odilon was stabbing the On August 12, 1998, Rusia testified before the trial court
victim, the appellant and Ronnie agreed to join in; they how the crimes were committed and identified all the
rushed to the scene and also stabbed the victim with appellants as the perpetrators. He declared that his
their respective knives. The three men simultaneously conduit to Francisco Juan Larrañaga was Rowen

45
 AB
Adlawan whom he met together with brothers James way, the van and the white car stopped by a barbeque
Anthony and James Andrew Uy five months before the store. Rowen got off the van and bought barbeque and
commission of the crimes charged. He has known Tanduay rhum. They proceeded to Tan-awan. Then they
Josman Aznar since 1991. He met Alberto Caño and parked their vehicles near a precipice where they drank
Ariel Balansag only in the evening of July 16, 1997. and had a pot session. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out
of the van and told her to dance as they encircled her.
She was pushed from one end of the circle to the other,
ripping her clothes in the process. Meanwhile, Josman
Or, July 15, 1997, while Rusia was loafing around at the told Larrañaga to start raping Marijoy who was left inside
Cebu Plaza Hotel, Cebu City, Rowen approached him the van. The latter did as told and after fifteen minutes
and arranged that they meet the following day at around emerged from the van saying, "who wants next?” Rowen
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. When they saw each other went in, followed by James Anthony, Alberto, the driver,
the next day, Rowen told him to stay put at the Ayala and Ariel, the conductor. Each spent a few minutes
Mall because they would have a "big happening" in the inside the van and afterwards came out smiling.
evening. All the while, he thought that Rowen's "big
happening" meant group partying or scrounging. He thus Then they carried Marijoy out of the van, after which
lingered at the Ayala Mall until the appointed time came. Josman brought Jacqueline inside the vehicle. Josman
came out from the van after ten minutes, saying,
At 10:30 in the evening, Rowen returned with Josman. "whoever wants next go ahead and hurry up." Rusia
They met Rusia at the back exit of the Ayala Mall and went inside the van and raped Jacqueline, followed by
told him to ride with them in a white car. Rusia noticed James Andrew. At this instance, Marijoy was to breathe
that a red car was following them. Upon reaching her last for upon Josman's instruction, Rowen and Ariel
Archbishop Reyes Avenue, same city, he saw two led her to the cliff and mercilessly pushed her into the
women standing at the waiting shed. Rusia did not know ravine which was almost 150 meters deep
yet that their names were Marijoy and Jacqueline.
As for Jacqueline, she was pulled out of the van and
Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed thrown to the ground. Able to gather a bit of strength,
and he and Rowen approached and invited Marijoy and she tried to run towards the road. The group boarded the
Jacqueline to join them. But the sisters declined. Irked by van, followed her and made fun of her by screaming,
the rejection, Rowen grabbed Marijoy while Josman held "run some more" There was a tricycle passing by. The
Jacqueline and forced both girls to ride in the car. group brought Jacqueline inside the van. Rowen beat
Marijoy was the first one to get inside, followed by her until she passed out. The group then headed back to
Rowen. Meanwhile, Josman pushed Jacqueline inside Cebu City with James Andrew driving the white car.
and immediately drove the white car. Rusia sat on the Rusia got off from the van somewhere near the Ayala
front seat beside Josman. Center.

Fourteen (14) meters from the waiting shed, Jacqueline There were other people who saw snippets of what
managed to get out of the car. Josman chased her and Rusia had witnessed. Sheila Singson, Analie Konahap
brought her back into the car. Not taking anymore and Williard Redobles testified that Marijoy and
chances, Rowen elbowed Jacqueline on the chest and Jacqueline were talking to Larrañaga and Josman before
punched Marijoy on the stomach, causing both girls to they were abducted. Roland Dacillo saw Jacqueline
faint. Rowen asked Rusia for the packaging tape under alighting and running away from a white car and that
the latter's seat and placed it on the girls' mouths. Josman went after her and grabbed her back to the car.
Rowen also handcuffed them jointly. The white and red Alfredo Duarte testified that he was at the barbeque
cars then proceeded to Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City. stand when Rowen bought barbeque; that Rowen asked
where he could buy Tanduay; that he saw a white van
At Fuente Osmeña, Josman parked the car near a and he heard therefrom voices of a male and female
Mercury Drug Store and urged Rusia to inquire if a van who seemed to be quarreling; that he also heard a cry of
that was parked nearby was for hire. A man who was a woman which he could not understand because "it was
around replied "no" so the group immediately left. The as if the voice was being controlled;" and that after
two cars stopped again near Park Place Hotel where Rowen got his order, he boarded the white van which he
Rusia negotiated to hire a van. But no van was available. recognized to be previously driven by Alberto Caño.
Thus, the cars sped to a house in Guadalupe, Cebu City Meanwhile, Mario Miñoza, a tricycle driver plying the
known as the safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group" route of Carcar-Mantalongon, saw Jacqueline running
Thereupon, Larrañaga, James Anthony and James towards Mantalongon. Her blouse was torn and her hair
Andrew got out of the red car. was disheveled. Trailing her was a white van where a
very loud rock music could be heard. Manuel Camingao
Larrañaga, James Anthony and Rowen brought Marijoy recounted that on July 17, 1997, at about 5:00 o'clock in
to one of the rooms, while Rusia and Josman led the morning, he saw a white van near a cliff at Tan-
Jacqueline to another room. Josman then told Rusia to awan. Thinking that the passenger of the white van was
step out so Rusia stayed at the living room with James throwing garbage at the cliff, he wrote its plate number
Andrew. They remained in the house for fifteen (15) to (GGC-491) on the side of his tricycle.
twenty (20) minutes. At that time, Rusia could hear
Larrañaga, James Anthony, and Rowen giggling inside Still, there were other witnesses presented by the
the room. prosecution who gave details which, when pieced
together, corroborated well Rusia's testimony on what
Thereafter, the group brought Marijoy and Jacqueline transpired at the Ayala Center all the way to Carcar.
back to the white car. Then the two cars headed to the
South Bus Terminal where they were able to hire a white ISSUE:
van driven by Alberto. Ariel was the conductor. James
Andrew drove the white car, while the rest of the group RULING:
boarded the van. They traveled towards south of Cebu  From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no
City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal. doubt that all the appellants conspired in the
commission of the crimes charged. Their concerted
actions point to their joint purpose and community of
intent.
Inside the van, Marijoy and Jacqueline were slowly
gaining strength. James Anthony taped their mouths Well settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof
anew and Rowen handcuffed them-together. Along the of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not
46
 AB
necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and when they returned to the scene, the victim was no
manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or longer there as he had already been brought to the
inferred from the acts of the accused themselves Perpetual Help Hospital. They learned from the tricycle
when such point to a joint design and community of driver who brought Mauro top the hospital that their
interest. Otherwise stated, it may be shown by the brother was pronounced dead on arrival.
conduct of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime. ISSUE:

Appellants' actions showed that they have the same RULING: In this case, conspiracy was shown because
objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. accused-appellants were together in performing the
Rowen and Josman grabbed Marijoy and Jacqueline concerted acts in pursuit of their common objective.
from the vicinity of Ayala Center. Larrañaga, James
Andrew and James Anthony who were riding a red Garcia grabbed the victim’s hands and twisted his arms;
car served as back-up of Rowen and Josman. in turn, Pamplona, together with Garchitorena, strangled
Together in a convoy, they proceeded to Fuente him and straddled him on the ground, then stabbed him.
Osmeña to hire a van, and thereafter, to the The victim was trying to free himself from them, but they
safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group" in were too strong. All means through which the victim
Guadalupe, Cebu where they initially molested could escape were blocked by them until he fell to the
Marijoy and Jacqueline. They headed to the South ground and expired. The three accused-appellants’ prior
Bus Terminal where they hired the white van driven act of waiting for the victim outside affirms the existence
by Alberto, with Ariel as the conductor. Except for of conspiracy, for it speaks of a common design and
James Andrew who drove the white car, all purpose.
appellants boarded the white van where they held
Marijoy and Jacqueline captive. In the van, James Where there is conspiracy, as here, evidence as to who
Anthony taped their mouths and Rowen handcuffed among the accused rendered the fatal blow is not
them together. They drank and had a pot session at necessary. All conspirators are liable as co-principals
Tan-awan. They encircled Jacqueline and ordered regardless of the intent and the character of their
her to dance, pushing her and ripping her clothes in participation, because the act of one is the act of all.
the process. Meanwhile, Larrañaga raped Marijoy,
followed by Rowen, James Anthony, Alberto, and "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
Ariel. On other hand, Josman and James Andrew an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
raped Jacqueline. Upon Josman's order, Rowen and and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for
Ariel led Marijoy to the cliff and pushed her. After conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused
leaving Tan-awan, they taunted Jacqueline to run for prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts
her life. And when Rusia got off from the van near must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or
Ayala Center, the appellants jointly headed back to community of interest. Hence, the victim need not be
Cebu City. actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one
of them is deemed the act of all."

 Clearly, the argument of Rowen, Ariel and Alberto Other Notes:

that they were not part of the "conspiracy" as they
were merely present during the perpetration of the Evidence presented by the prosecution shows that the
crimes charged but not participants therein, is bereft accused conspired to assault the victim Mauro Biay.
of merit. Accused Jessie Garcia was the one who called the
victim and prompted the latter to approach their group
To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of near the artesian well. When the victim was near
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an enough, accused Jessie Garcia and co-accused Joey
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Pamplona restrained Mauro Biay and overpowered him.
There must be intentional participation in the transaction Witness Borero then saw the two accused, Jessie Garcia
with a view to the furtherance of the common design and and Joey Pamplona, together with their co-accused
purpose. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined Arnold Garchitorena instructed his two co-accused to
to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of run. Conspiracy is apparent in the concerted action of
conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses the three accused. There is conspiracy when two or
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it (People
4. People vs. Garchitorena vs. Pendatun, 434 SCRA 148). Conspiracy may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the
FACTS: On September 22, 1995, at around 9:00 o’clock offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
in the evening, she was selling "balut" at Sta. Inez, accused which show a joint or common purpose and
Almeda Subdivision, Brgy. Dela Paz, Binan, Laguna. Her design, a concerted action and community of interest
brother, Mauro Biay, also a "balut" vendor", was also at among the accused (People vs. Sicad, et al., 391 SCRA
the area, about seven (7) arm’s length away from her 19).
when she was called by accused Jessie Garcia.
5. People vs. Carandang
Borero testified that when her brother Mauro approached
Jessie, the latter twisted the hand of her brother behind FACTS: In the afternoon of April 5, 2001, the drug
his back and Jessie’s companions- accused Arnold enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1
Garchitorena and Joey Pamplona – began stabbing her received a request for assistance from the sister of
brother Mauro repeatedly with a shiny bladed instrument. accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly
Joey was at the right side of the victim and was take place in her house at Calavite St., Brgy. Salvacion,
strangling Mauro from behind. Witness saw her brother Quezon City. The station commander called SPO2
Mauro struggling to free himself while being stabbed by Wilfredo Pilar Red and instructed him to talk to Milan’s
the three (3) accused, until her brother slumped face sister, who was in their office. SPO2 Red, accompanied
down on the ground. Arnold then instructed his two co- by Police Officer (PO) 2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1 Estores
accused to run away. During cross-examination, Borero and SPO1 Montecalvo, talked to Milan’s sister.
claims that she wanted to shout for help but nothing Thereafter, SPO2 Red formed a team composed of the
came out from her mouth. When the accused had left officers who accompanied him during the interrogation,
after the stabbing incident, witness claimed that she with him as team leader. The team received further
went home to call her elder brother Teodoro Biay, but instructions from the station commander then proceeded

47
 AB
to Calavite Street aboard two vehicles, a mobile patrol Appellants’ attempt to instill doubts in our minds that
car and an unmarked car. Chua shouted "sugurin mo na" to Milan, who then ran
towards SPO1 Montecalvo, must fail. SPO1 Estores’s
When the team reached the place at around 4:00 p.m., positive testimony44 on this matter prevails over the
they alighted from their vehicles and surrounded Milan’s plain denials of Milan and Chua. SPO1 Estores has no
house. SPO1 Montecalvo’s group went to the left side of reason to lie about the events he witnessed on April 5,
the house, while SPO2 Red’s group proceeded to the 2001. As part of the team that was attacked on that day,
right. The two groups eventually met at the back of the it could even be expected that he is interested in having
house near Milan’s room. The door to Milan’s room was only the real perpetrators punished.
open, enabling the police officers to see Carandang,
Milan and Chua inside. SPO2 Red told the group that the Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to
persons inside the room would not put up a fight, making negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident
them confident that nothing violent would erupt. premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to
However, when the group introduced themselves as exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to
police officers, Milan immediately shut the door. afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection.
Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the
PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
causing it to fall and propelling them inside the room. subject felony.
PO2 Alonzo shouted "Walang gagalaw!" Suddenly,
gunshots rang, hitting PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red who As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
dropped to the floor one after the other. Due to the Milan’s act of closing the door facilitated the commission
suddenness of the attack, PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red of the crime, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush. The
were not able to return fire and were instantly killed by sudden gunshots when the police officers pushed the
the barrage of gunshots. SPO1 Montecalvo, who was door open illustrate the intention of appellants and
right behind SPO2 Red, was still aiming his firearm at Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers
the assailants when Carandang shot and hit him. SPO1 to defend themselves.
Montecalvo fell to the ground. SPO1 Estores heard Chua
say to Milan, "Sugurin mo na!" Milan lunged towards Other Notes:
SPO1 Montecalvo, but the latter was able to fire his gun
and hit Milan. SPO1 Estores went inside the house and In the present case, when appellants were alerted of the
pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out. presence of the police officers, Milan immediately closed
the door. Thereafter, when the police officers were finally
Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the able to break open said door, Carandang peppered them
arrival of P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, Chief Operations Officer of with bullets. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red died instantly
the La Loma Police Station 1, and P/Supt. Roxas, the as a result while SPO1 Montecalvo was mortally
Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the wounded. Then, upon seeing their victims helplessly
time of the incident. SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to lying on the floor and seriously wounded, Chua ordered
the Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out of the Milan to attack the police officers. Following the order,
house and was also brought to a hospital, but Milan rushed towards Montecalvo but the latter,
Carandang and Chua remained holed up inside the however, was able to shoot him.
house for several hours. There was a lengthy negotiation
for the surrender of Carandang and Chua, during which At first glance, Milan’s act of closing the door may seem
they requested for the presence of a certain Colonel a trivial contribution in the furtherance of the crime. On
Reyes and media man Ramon Tulfo. It was around second look, however, that act actually facilitated the
11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when Carandang and Chua commission of the crime. The brief moment during which
surrendered. SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found the police officers were trying to open the door paved the
dead inside the house, their bodies slumped on the floor way for the appellants to take strategic positions which
with broken legs and gunshot and grenade shrapnel gave them a vantage point in staging their assault. Thus,
wounds. when SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were finally able to get
inside, they were instantly killed by the sudden barrage
 Milan and Chua appealed to this Court anew. of gunfire. In fact, because of the suddenness of the
Carandang did not appeal, and instead presented a attack, said police officers were not able to return fire.
letter informing this Court that he is no longer
interested in pursuing an appeal. On April 9, 2008, Insofar as Chua is concerned, his participation in the
Milan and Chua filed a Supplemental Appellant’s conspiracy consisted of lending encouragement and
Brief to further discuss the Assignment of Errors they moral ascendancy to his co-conspirators as evidenced
presented in their September 28, 2004 Appellant’s by the fact that he ordered Milan to attack the already
Brief: fallen police officers with the obvious intention to finish
them off. Moreover, he did not immediately surrender
ISSUE: even when he had the opportunity to do so but instead
chose to stay with Carandang inside the room until their
RULING: In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan arrest.
and Chua conspired with Carandang was established by
their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan’s 6. People vs. Dadao
closing the door when the police officers introduced
themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and FACTS: Prosecution’s first witness, Ronie Dacion, a 14-
(2) after the shooting (Chua’s directive to Milan to attack year old stepson of the victim, Pionio Yacapin, testified
SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan’s following such that on July 11, 1993 at about 7:30 in the evening he
instruction). saw accused Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie
Malogsi and Alfemio Malogsi helping each other and with
Contrary to the suppositions of appellants, these facts the use of firearms and bolos, shot to death the victim,
are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by Pionio Yacapin in their house at Barangay Salucot,
inducement, or that Milan’s act of attacking SPO1 Talakag, Bukidnon.
Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct
participation. Instead, these facts are convincing The testimony of the second witness for the prosecution,
circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the Edgar Dacion, a 12-year old stepson of the victim,
minds of the three. As co-conspirators, all three are corroborates the testimony of his older brother Ronie
considered principals by direct participation. Dacion.

48
 AB
Prosecution’s third witness, Nenita Yacapin, the widow design, concerted action, and community of interest. As
of the victim, also corroborates the testimony of the such, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound,
prosecution’s first and second witness. The said witness as each of the actors incurs the same criminal liability,
further testified that she suffered civil and moral because the act of one is the act of all. (Citation and
damages [due to] the death of her husband. emphasis omitted.)

Prosecution’s fourth witness, Bernandino Signawan, As to appellants’ argument that their act of bravely
testified that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of July reporting to the police station to answer the serious
11, 1993, Ronie and Edgar Dacion reached to [sic] his charge of murder against them instead of fleeing counts
house and related to him that their stepfather was killed against a finding of any criminal liability on their part
by accused Eddie Malogsi, [A]lfemio Malogsi, Marcelino especially in light of the dubious evidence presented by
Dadao and Antonio Sulindao. Witness Signawan further the prosecution, we can only dismiss this as a hollow line
testified that on the following morning, he and the other of reasoning considering that human experience as
people in Ticalaan including the barangay captain, Ronie observed in jurisprudence instructs us that non-flight
and Edgar Dacion returned to the house of the victim does not necessarily connote innocence. Consequently,
and found the latter already dead and in the surrounding we have held:
[area] of the house were recovered empty shells of
firearms. Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not
necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even
Prosecution’s fifth witness, SPO2 Nestor Aznar, testified erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt.
that he was the one who prepared the sketch of the hut Some may escape or flee – a circumstance strongly
where the incident happened and further testified that illustrative of guilt – while others may remain in the same
the four accused were in the custody of the government vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby
and in the following morning of the incident, he was at avoiding suspicion from other members of the
the scene of the crime and found in the yard of the hut community.
eight (8) garand empty shells caliber 30m[m].
7. People vs. Octa
The prosecution presented its sixth and last witness,
Modesto Libyocan, who testified that on the evening of FACTS: In the morning of September 25, 2003, around
July 11, 1993, at Barangay Salucot, he saw in the house 6:40 A.M., Johnny Corpuz (Johnny) and Mike Adrian
of the victim, Pionio Yacapin, lights caused by flashlights Batuigas (Mike Adrian) were on board a Honda Civic Car
and heard several gunshots from the house of the victim, colored silver with Plate No. UPT 697 travelling on
and that the family left their house on that evening and Buenos Aires St., Sampaloc, Manila when their way was
went to Ticalaan where they learned that Pionio Yacapin blocked by a Mitsubishi box type Lancer car colored red-
was killed in his house and that early the following orange. The four (4) armed occupants of the Lancer car
morning, July 12, 1993, he was with some companions, alighted. Johnny did not open the door of the Honda
barangay officials of Ticalaan in the house of the victim Civic car but one of the armed men fired his pistol at the
where they found him dead and sustaining gunshot left window of the civic car, thus compelling Johnny to
wounds. open the locked door of the car. The armed men went
inside the car and Johnny was ordered to transfer at the
ISSUE: back seat at that time. Inside the car, Johnny was
handcuffed, blindfolded and was even boxed. The armed
RULING: With regard to appellants’ assertion that the men asked for the names and telephone numbers of his
negative result of the paraffin tests that were conducted mother-in-law. The armed men called his mother-in-law
on their persons should be considered as sufficient giving the information that Johnny was in their custody
ground for acquittal, we can only declare that such a and they would just meet each other at a certain place.
statement is misguided considering that it has been They travelled for a while and then they stopped and
established in jurisprudence that a paraffin test is not Johnny was brought to a safehouse.
conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.16 It
should also be noted that, according to the prosecution, After Johnny and Mike were kidnapped, the kidnappers
only Eddie and Alfemio Malogsi held firearms which communicated with Johnny’s wife Ana Marie Corpuz
were used in the fatal shooting of Pionio Yacapin while (Ana Marie) giving the information that they have in their
Marcelino Dadao and Antonio Sulindao purportedly held custody her husband Johnny and her brother Mike
bolos. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the latter Adrian. Ana Marie tried to confirm the kidnapping
two tested negative for powder burns because they were incident by talking to her husband, who confirmed to his
never accused of having fired any gun. Nevertheless, the wife that he and Mike Adrian were indeed kidnapped and
evidence on record has established that all four accused they were in the custody of their abductors. Ana Marie
shared a community of criminal design. By their sought the assistance of the PACER [Police AntiCrime
concerted action, it is evident that they conspired with and Emergency Response] and stayed in a PACER
one another to murder Pionio Yacapin and should each safehouse located at P. Tuazon, Cubao, Quezon City.
suffer the same criminal liability attached to the During her stay, she had several communications with
aforementioned criminal act regardless of who fired the her husband’s kidnappers. The latter started demanding
weapon which delivered the fatal wounds that ended the the amount of ₱20 million for the release of her husband
life of the victim. and her brother but the amount was considerably
reduced up to the time that Ana Marie was able to raise
In People v. Nelmida,17 we elaborated on the principle the amount of ₱538,000.00 which was accepted by the
of criminal conspiracy and its ramifications in this kidnappers.
manner:
Finally, on September 30, 2003 at 10PM, the kidnappers
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to set up the manner on how the ransom money would be
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony delivered. Ana Marie travelled to Quiapo Church, then to
and then decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant Quezon City circle up to SM Fairview and to Robinsons
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the Fairview. She was made to stop at Red Lips Beer House
felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. Once and go to the nearby Caltex Auto Supply where she
established, each and every one of the conspirators is would see a man wearing a red cap and who would ask
made criminally liable for the crime actually committed her "saan yong padala ni boss". She was instructed to
by any one of them. In the absence of any direct proof, deliver the wrapped bundled ransom money to the man
the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from wearing red cap. When she saw the man with red cap,
the mode and manner of the commission of the offense she was asked for the money. At first, she did not give
or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and the money because she wanted to be sure that she was
49
 AB
giving the money to the right man. Using her own it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose
cellphone, she called up the man who had been or common design and were united in its execution,
instructing her all along and asked him to confirm if the conspiracy is sufficiently established. It must be shown
man in front of her is the right man to give the ransom that all participants performed specific acts with such
money to, saying "kausapin mo muna ito kung siya ba." closeness and coordination as to indicate a common
The man in the phone and the man in the red cap talked purpose or design to commit the felony.
for a while in another dialect which Ana Marie did not
understand. When she asked the man to give back her 8. People vs. Feliciano
cellphone to her, he refused and, instead instructed her
to give the money to him. She described the man FACTS: Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis
wearing red cap to be good-looking, lightly built, in his Venturina, Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix
early 20s, around 5’4" in height and with dimples, which Tumaneng,7 and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all members
she later identified in court as accused Estanly Octa. of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at
around 12:30 to 1:00 p.m., they were having lunch at
On October 1, 2003, Johnny was released by his captors Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main
after the payment of ransom money. He was detained for Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman,
the duration of six (6) days. After his release, he Quezon City.8 Suddenly, Dennis Venturina shouted,
removed his blindfold and handcuffs but he could hardly "Brads, brods!"
regain his sight and see things. He flagged down a
private pick-up and learned that he was in Camarin, According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma
Caloocan City. He asked a favor that he be driven to Rho Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina
Meycauayan, Bulacan where he took a jeepney to shouted, and he saw about ten (10) men charging
Monumento, and from there, he took a taxi bound home. toward them. The men were armed with baseball bats
When he was released, his brother-in-law Mike Adrian and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with either
was also released. handkerchiefs or shirts. Within a few seconds, five (5) of
the men started attacking him, hitting him with their lead
 Accused-appellant also claims that he cannot be pipes. During the attack, he recognized one of the
considered as a conspirator to the kidnapping in the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his
absence of concrete proof that he actually mask fell off.
participated in the execution of the essential
elements of the crime by overt acts indispensable to
Lachica tried to parry the blows of his attackers, suffering
its accomplishment. His receipt of the ransom
scratches and contusions.
money transpired only after the kidnapping had been
consummated and was not an essential element of
the crime. He was, however, able to run to the nearby College of
Education. Just before reaching it, he looked back and
ISSUE: saw Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor L. Medalla
holding lead pipes and standing where the commotion
RULING: Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co- was. Both of them did not have their masks on. He was
principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to familiar with Alvir, Zingapan, and Medalla because he
have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance often saw them in the College of Social Sciences and
of the complicity. There must be intentional participation Philosophy (CSSP) and Zingapan used to be his friend.
in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the The attack lasted about thirty (30) to forty-five (45)
common design and purpose. seconds.

Taking these facts in conjunction with the testimony of According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of
Dexter, who testified that accused-appellant was the one Sigma Rho, he looked to his left when Venturina
who received the ransom money x x x then the shouted. He saw about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) men,
commonality of purpose of the acts of accused-appellant most of who were wearing masks, running toward them.
together with the other accused can no longer be denied. He was stunned, and he started running. He stumbled
Such acts have the common design or purpose to over the protruding roots of a tree. He got up, but the
commit the felony of kidnapping for ransom. attackers came after him and beat him up with lead
pipes and baseball bats until he fell down. While he was
Thus, accused-appellants’ argument that he is a mere parrying the blows, he recognized two (2) of the
accomplice must fail. He is liable as a principal for being attackers as Warren Zingapan and Christopher L. Soliva
a co-conspirator in the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom since they were not wearing any masks. After about
under Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659 x x thirty (30) seconds, they stopped hitting him.
x.32 (Emphasis ours)
He was lying on his back and when he looked up, he
Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the saw another group of four (4) to five (5) men coming
time accused-appellant received the ransom money, the toward him, led by Benedict Guerrero. This group also
crime of kidnapping was still continuing, since both beat him up. He did not move until another group of
victims were still being illegally detained by the masked men beat him up for about five (5) to eight (8)
kidnappers.33 While his receipt of the ransom money seconds.
was not a material element of the crime, it was
nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the When the attacks ceased, he was found lying on the
main reason for kidnapping the victims.34 Ransom is ground. Several bystanders brought him to the U.P.
money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the Infirmary where he stayed for more than a week for the
redemption of a captured person or persons; or payment treatment of his wounds and fractures.
that releases from captivity.35 Without ransom money,
the freedom of the detained victims cannot be achieved. According to Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma
The positive identification of accused-appellant Rho, he also looked back when Venturina shouted and
constitutes direct, and not merely circumstantial, saw a group of men with baseball bats and lead pipes.
evidence. Some of them wore pieces of cloth around their heads.
He ran when they attacked, but two (2) men, whose
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an faces were covered with pieces of cloth, blocked his way
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and and hit him with lead pipes. While running and parrying
decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in the blows, he recognized them as Gilbert Merle
concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo because their
50
 AB
masks fell off. He successfully evaded his attackers and medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
ran to the Main Library. He then decided that he needed Investigation, found that Venturina had "several
to help his fraternity brothers and turned back toward contusions located at the back of the upper left arm and
Beach House. There, he saw Venturina lying on the hematoma on the back of both hands," "two (2) lacerated
ground. Danilo Feliciano, Jr. was beating Venturina up wounds at the back of the head, generalized hematoma
with a lead pipe while Raymund E. Narag was aiming to on the skull," "several fractures on the head," and "inter-
hit Venturina. When they saw him, they went toward his cranial hemorrhage." The injuries, according to Dr.
direction. They were about to hit him when somebody Victoria, could have been caused by a hard-blunt object.
shouted that policemen were coming. Feliciano and Dr. Victoria concluded that Venturina died of traumatic
Narag then ran away. head injuries.

Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Amel Fortes. Fortes ISSUE:

accompanied him to his car so they could bring
Venturina to the U.P. Infirmary. When they brought the RULING: It should be remembered that the trial court
car over, other people, presumably bystanders, were found that there was conspiracy among the accused-
already loading Venturina into another vehicle. They appellants and the appellate court sustained this finding.
followed that vehicle to the U.P. Infirmary where they
saw Natalicio. He stayed at the infirmary until the Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching
following morning. liability to all of the accused, regardless of their degree of
participation, thus: Once an express or implied
According to Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as
Rho, he immediately stood up when he heard someone co-principals regardless of the extent and character of
shout, "Brods!" He saw a group of men charging toward their respective active participation in the commission of
them carrying lead pipes and baseball bats. Most of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the
them had pieces of cloth covering their faces. He was conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of
about to run when two (2) of the attackers approached one is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored on
him. One struck him with a heavy pipe while the other the sound principle that "when two or more persons unite
stabbed him with a bladed instrument. He was able to to accomplish a criminal object, whether through the
parry most of the blows from the lead pipe, but he physical volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or
sustained stab wounds on the chest and on his left collectively, each individual whose evil will actively
forearm. contributes to the wrong-doing is in law responsible for
the whole, the same as though performed by himself
He was able to run away. When he sensed that no one alone." Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for
was chasing him, he looked back to Beach House acts other than his own, "when two or more persons
Canteen and saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Warren agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible
Zingapan, and George Morano. He decided to go back for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the
to the canteen to help his fraternity brothers. When he agreement or conspiracy." The imposition of collective
arrived, he did not see any of his fraternity brothers but liability upon the conspirators is clearly explained in one
only saw the ones who attacked them.54 He ended up case where this Court held that
going to their hang-out instead to meet with his other
fraternity brothers. They then proceeded to the College ... it is impossible to graduate the separate liability of
of Law where the rest of the fraternity was already each (conspirator) without taking into consideration the
discussing the incident. close and inseparable relation of each of them with the
criminal act, for the commission of which they all acted
According to Amel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he by common agreement ... The crime must therefore in
also ran when he saw the group of attackers coming view of the solidarity of the act and intent which existed
toward them. When he looked back, he saw Danilo between the ... accused, be regarded as the act of the
Feliciano, Jr. hitting Venturina. He was also able to see band or party created by them, and they are all equally
Warren Zingapan and George Morano at the scene. responsible

Leandro Lachica, in the meantime, upon reaching the Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors
College of Education, boarded a jeepney to the College conspired and confederated in the commission of the
of Law to wait for their other fraternity brothers. One of felony proved, collective liability of the accused
his fraternity brothers, Peter Corvera, told him that he conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy, and
received information that members of Scintilla Juris were the court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to
seen in the west wing of the Main Library and were the actual degree of participation of each of the
regrouping in SM North. Lachica and his group then set perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x x.
off for SM North to confront Scintilla Juris and identify (Emphasis supplied)
their attackers.
The liabilities of the accused-appellants in this case
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones arose from a single incident wherein the accused-
were thrown at them. Lachica saw Robert Michael appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead
Beltran Alvir and Warren Zingapan and a certain Carlo pipes, all in agreement to do the highest amount of
Taparan. They had no choice but to get away from the damage possible to the victims. Some were able to run
mall and proceed instead to U.P. where the Sigma Rho away and take cover, but the others would fall prey at
Fraternity members held a meeting. the hands of their attackers. The intent to kill was already
present at the moment of attack and that intent was
On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma shared by all of the accused-appellants alike when the
Rho advised the victims to lodge their complaints with presence of conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore,
the National Bureau of Investigation. Their counsel, Atty. immaterial to distinguish between the seriousness of the
Frank Chavez, told the U.P. Police that the victims would injuries suffered by the victims to determine the
be giving their statements before the National Bureau of respective liabilities of their attackers. What is relevant is
Investigation, promising to give the U.P. Police copies of only as to whether the death occurs as a result of that
their statements. In the meantime, Venturina was intent to kill and whether there are qualifying,
transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St. Luke's Hospital aggravating or mitigating circumstances that can be
on December 8, 1994. He died on December 10, 1994. appreciated.
On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was conducted on
the cadaver of Dennis Venturina. Dr. Rolando Victoria, a

51
 AB
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the was Morilla’s turn to pass through the checkpoint, he
accused-appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries. was requested to open the rear door for a routinary
It would be illogical to presume that despite the swiftness check. Noticing white granules scattered on the floor, the
and suddenness of the attack, the attackers intended to police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If
kill only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor
intended to injure Lachica, Mangrobang, and Gaston. Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he
Since the intent to kill was evident from the moment the was with the mayor.
accused-appellants took their first swing, all of them
were liable for that intent to kill. His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the
contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the instruction
For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said
for the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted vehicle likewise bears no merit.
murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,
Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr. Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante
delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on
9. People vs. Morilla board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the
Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from
FACTS: Two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor one place to another." It was well established during trial
Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead
Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to
which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine
checkpoint set up by the police officers. However, the hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished
ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police as an offense under a special law. The fact of
officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs
officers noticed several sacks inside the van. Upon need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks motive or knowledge.
contained narra wooden tiles.
Other Notes:
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to
open the rear door of the car for further inspection. When Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. 1(b), Rule
it was opened, the operatives noticed that white 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure to substantiate
crystalline granules were scattered on the floor, his argument that he should have been informed first of
prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He
this moment, Morilla told the police officers that he was pointed out that the Information itself failed to state the
with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let word conspiracy but instead, the statement "the above-
him pass. His request was rejected by the police officers named accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of the
and upon inspection, the contents of the sacks turned Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all
out to be sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This belong to an organized/syndicated crime group as they
discovery prompted the operatives to chase the Starex all help one another, did then and there wilfully,
van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to unlawfully and feloniously transport x x x." He argued
overtake the van and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. that conspiracy was only inferred from the words used in
They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain the Information.
view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded
with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Even assuming that his assertion is correct, the issue of
Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the door of the defect in the information, at this point, is deemed to have
vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra been waived due to Morilla’s failure to assert it as a
offered to settle the matter but the same was rejected. ground in a motion to quash before entering his plea.
Upon examination, the contents of the sacks were
likewise found to contain sacks of methamphetamine Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla
hydrochloride. participated and presented his defenses to contradict the
allegation of conspiracy before the trial and appellate
The two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, courts. His failure or neglect to assert a right within a
were acquitted by the trial court for failure on the part of reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party
the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
reasonable doubt. The court ruled that Dequilla’s and assert it.
Yang’s mere presence inside the vehicle as passengers
was inadequate to prove that they were also 10. People vs. Bokingco
conspirators of Mayor Mitra and Morilla.
FACTS: The victim, Noli Pasion (Pasion) and his wife,
ISSUE: Elsa, were residing in a house along Mac Arthur
Highway in Balibago, Angeles City. Pasion owned a
RULING: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a maintained two (2) rows of apartment units at the back of
felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, his house. The first row had six (6) units, one of which is
there must be a common design to commit a felony. Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Dante Vitalicio
(Vitalicio), Pasion’s brother-in-law, while the other row
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties was still under construction at the time of his death.
actually came together and agreed in express terms to Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of among the 13 construction workers employed by Pasion.
the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime,
usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances The prosecution’s evidence shows that at around 1:00
which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of a.m. on 29 February 2000, Vitalicio was spin-drying his
some complete whole. In this case, the totality of the clothes inside his apartment when Pasion came from the
factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla front door, passed by him and went out of the back door.
conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to A few minutes later, he heard a commotion from
transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with Apartment No. 3. He headed to said unit to check. He
several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive through something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco
the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it allegedly pushed open the screen door and attacked him

52
 AB
with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued and towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves,
Vitalicio was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s at best, that there were two crimes committed
neck and managed to push him away. Bokingco tried to simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to
chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co- escape from the crimes they separately committed.
worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by
his wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen of Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill
Apartment No. 3. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No. 3 Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before
and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor. he sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated
Pasion and Vitalicio were brought to the hospital. Pasion because while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of
expired a few hours later while Vitalicio was treated for his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the
his injuries. pawnshop.

Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is
the second floor of the house when she heard banging inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible
sounds and her husband’s moans. She immediately got against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as
off the bed and went down. Before reaching the kitchen, a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Col blocked her way. Elsa asked him why he was inside Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
their house but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed act, declaration or omission of another.
tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her
chin. Elsa was wounded when she bowed her head to In order that the admission of a conspirator may be
avoid the tear gas. Col then instructed her to open the received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by
does not know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering evidence other than the admission itself; second, the
him money but Col dragged her towards the back door admission relates to the common object; and third, it has
by holding her neck and pulling her backward. Before been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying
they reached the door, Elsa saw Bokingco open the out the conspiracy.50 As we have previously discussed,
screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay na siya." we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish the
Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco. existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the extrajudicial
Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw confession has no probative value and is inadmissible in
her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood. evidence against Col.

Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because
Lucina Dayaon, jotted down notes during the preliminary Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the
investigation. She attests that Bokingco admitted that he latter hit him in the head.
conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned
the killing several days before because they got "fed up" All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no
with Pasion. sufficient evidence was adduced to implicate him.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant Col is guilty beyond 11. Fernand vs. People
reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.
FACTS: On June 21, 1978, COA Regional Director
RULING: In order to convict Col as a principal by direct Sofronio Flores Jr. of COA Regional Office No. 7,
participation in the case before us, it is necessary that directed auditors Victoria C. Quejada and Ruth I.
conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved. Paredes to verify and submit a report on sub-allotment
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an advises issued to various highway engineering districts
agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred in Cebu, particularly, the Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu 2nd
from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after and the Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts.
the commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be Complying with such instruction, they conducted an
deduced from the mode and manner in which the investigation and in due course submitted their findings.
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design,
Their report (Exhibit C) confirmed the issuance of fake
concerted action, and community of interest. Unity of
Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs) in the districts
purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful
mentioned. They discovered that two sets of LAAs were
objective are essential to establish the existence of
received by the districts. One set consists of regular
conspiracy.
LAAs which clearly indicated the covering sub-allotment
advices and were duly signed by Mrs. Angelina Escaño,
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same
who was the Finance Officer of the MPH Regional
quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown
Office. The LAAs were numbered in proper sequence
as clearly as the commission of the crime.
and duly recorded in the logbook of the Accounting,
Budget and Finance Division. The other set consists of
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s fake LAAs which do not indicate the covering sub-
testimony that appellants fled together after killing her allotment advice and were signed by Chief Accountant
husband and the extrajudicial confession of Bokingco. Rolando Mangubat and Engr. Jose Bagasao, instead of
Escaño. These fake LAAs were not numbered in proper
Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col order; they were mostly undated and were sometimes
was not seen at the apartment where Pasion was being duplicated. They could not be traced to the files and
attacked by Bokingco. In fact, he was at Elsa’s house records of the Accounting, Budget and Finance Division.
and allegedly ordering her to open the pawnshop vault. The accounting entry for the disbursements made on the
fake LAAs was debited to the Accounts-Payable
Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred Unliquidated Obligations (8-81-400) and credited to the
that Col conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the Checking Account with the Bureau of Treasury (8-70-
most, Col’s actuations can be equated to attempted 790). Nevertheless, the expenditures were taken from
robbery, which was actually the initial information filed obligations of the current year (which was 1978)
against appellants before it was amended, on motion of because all the supporting papers of the payment
the prosecution, for murder. vouchers were dated in that year. The entries in the
journal vouchers filed with the MPH Regional Office were
Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that adjusted every month to 8-81-400 (unliquidated or prior
Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the years obligation), 8-83-000 (liquidated or current year
place. This does not prove that they acted in concert obligations) and 8-70-700 (Treasury/Agency Account).
53
 AB
All of these were approved for the Finance Officer by Focusing our attention now on the anomalies committed
Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat. Mangubat, in the Cebu First District Engineering District, hereinafter
however, had no authority to approve them because referred to as the Cebu First HED for brevity, the Court
since October 1977, he had already been detailed to the finds that the same pattern of fraud employed in the
MPH Central Office. There were indications that the other highway engineering districts in MPH Region VII
practice had been going on for years. was followed.

Due to these serious irregularities, then President ISSUE:

Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee on MPH
Region VII "Ghost Projects Anomalies" which organized RULING: We find that the conspiracy in the instant
a Special Task Force composed of representatives from cases resembles the "wheel" conspiracy. The 36
the Finance Ministry Intelligence Bureau (FMIB), disparate persons who constituted the massive
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Bureau of conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by
Treasury and the Commission on Audit. The task force a single hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief
was assigned to conduct a wider and more extended Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose
investigation in all the fifteen (15) highway engineering Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II),
districts of MPH Region VII, including the Cebu First who controlled the separate "spokes" of the conspiracy.
Highway Engineering District, the 1977 questionable Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel.
disbursements of which are the subject matter of these
cases. Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join
him. All three agreed to help him carry out his plan. They
It was found that sometime in February, 1977, accused typed fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson
Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido also took charge of negotiating or selling fake LAAs to
(Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and contractors at 26% of the gross amount. Preagido
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII, met at manipulated the general ledger, journal vouchers and
the Town and Country Restaurant in Cebu City and general journal through negative entries to conceal the
hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off large sums of illegal disbursements. In the initial report of COA auditors
money from government coffers. Mangubat had found a Victoria C. Quejada and Ruth I. Paredes it was
way to withdraw government money through the use of discovered that the doubtful allotments and other
fake LAAs, vouchers and other documents and to anomalies escaped notice. The four formed the nucleus
conceal traces thereof with the connivance of other of the nefarious conspiracy. Other government
government officials and employees. In fine, the employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big
fraudulent scheme involved the splitting of LAAs and money, allowed their names to be used and signed
RSEs so that the amount covered by each general spurious documents.
voucher is less than P50,000.00 to do away with the
approval of the Regional Auditor; the charging of The feeble defense of petitioners that they were not
disbursements to unliquidated obligations due the aware of the ingenuous plan of the group of accused
previous year to provide the supposed source of funds; Mangubat and the indispensable acts to defraud the
and the manipulation of the books of account by government does not merit any consideration. The State
negation or adjustment, i.e., the cancellation of checks is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by
through journal vouchers to conceal disbursements in petitioners with the other accused, for such requirement,
excess of the cash disbursement ceiling (CDC), so as in many cases, would border on near impossibility. The
not to reflect such disbursements in the trial balances State needs to adduce proof only when the accused
submitted to the Regional Office. committed acts that constitute a vital connection to the
chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of the objective of
Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join the conspiracy. In the case at bench, the signing of the
him. All three agreed to help him carry out his plan. They fake tally sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of
typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson inspection, and requests for supplies and materials by
also took charge of negotiating or selling the fake LAAs petitioners on separate occasions is vital to the success
to contractors at 26% of the gross amount. Preagido on of the Mangubat Group in siphoning off government
her part manipulated the General Ledger, Journal funds. Without such fabricated documents, the general
Vouchers and General Journal thru negative entries to vouchers covering the supply of materials cannot be
conceal the illegal disbursements. Thus, in the initial properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing
report of the auditors (Exhibit D), it was discovered that officer for the preparation of checks.
the doubtful allotments and other anomalies escaped
notice. State witness Ruth Paredes, Supervising COA Auditor,
elaborated on the procedure regarding the award of the
contract more specifically to the payment of the
Although the anomalies had been going on for sometime
contractor or supplier. Once the Request for Supplies
(February 1977 to June 1978), the PNB and Bureau of
and Equipment is approved by the Regional Office, the
Treasury had no inkling about it until the NBI busted the
Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA) or the request
illegal operations. (Some of the recipients of the stolen
for funds is signed by the District Engineer pursuant to
funds spent lavishly and bought two cars at a time). The
the approved plans and budget and signed by the district
reason for this is that, at that time, the PNB and Bureau
accountant as to availability of funds.
of Treasury were not furnished copy of the mother CDC
and the local branch of the PNB did not receive
The district office will advertise the invitation to bid and
independent advice from the PNB head office in Manila.
award the contract to the lowest bidder. The Purchase
There were no deposits of money made with the PNB
Order (PO) is prepared and addressed to the winning
from which withdrawals could be charged. Only CDCs
bidder. Upon delivery of the supplies and materials, the
were presented to it, and not knowing that some of the
supplier bills the district office for payment.
CDCs were fake, the PNB branch paid out the checks
Consequently, the requisitioning officer will prepare the
drawn against them. The bank had also no way of
general voucher which must be accompanied by the
knowing what amount was appropriated for the district;
following documents:
consequently, it did not know if the limit had already
been exceeded. Only an insider steep in government
accounting, auditing and banking procedures, a. The ROA;
particularly their flaws and loopholes, could have pulled
off such an ingenious and audacious plan. b. The PO;

c. The abstract of Bid together with the Bid quotations;

xxxx
54
 AB
d. The delivery receipts together with the tally sheets; and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of
and the Philippines.

e. The tax clearance and tax certificate of the supplier. CONTRARY TO LAW

After the preparation and submission of the general The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction
voucher and the supporting documents, the disbursing over most of the accused, including petitioners. All filed
officer shall prepare and draw a check based on said petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted
voucher. The check is countersigned by an officer of the except those of the petitioners. Their motions for
district office and/or the COA Regional Director based on reconsideration were denied. GMA assailed the denial of
the amount of the check. her petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However,
this remains unresolved.
Thus, it is clear that without the tally sheets and delivery
receipts, the general voucher cannot be prepared and After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused
completed. Without the general voucher, the check for separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting
the payment of the supply cannot be made and issued to that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder
the supplier. Without the check payment, the against them.
defraudation cannot be committed and successfully
consummated. Thus, petitioners’ acts in signing the false The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and
tally sheets and/or delivery receipts are indispensable to dismissed the case against the accused within its
the consummation of the crime of estafa thru falsification jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held
of public documents. that there was sufficient evidence showing that they had
conspired to commit plunder.
12. GMA vs. People
Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on
FACTS: Petitioners in this case are former President certiorari before the Supreme Court to assail the denial
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Philippine Charity of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Officer Benigno Aguas. jurisdiction.

The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with ISSUE:

plunder as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. Procedural:
7659 the following: (1) GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former
PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario C. 1. Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is
Uriarte, (4) former PCSO Chairman of the Board of proper to assail the denial of the demurrers to evidence.
Directors Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former members of the
PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two former officials of Substantive:
the Commission on Audit (COA).
1. Whether or not the State sufficiently established the
The information read: existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte
;
…[the] accused…all public officers committing the
offense in relation to their respective offices and taking 2. Whether or not the State sufficiently established all the
undue advantage of their respective official positions, elements of the crime of plunder: (a) Was there evidence
authority, relationships, connections or influence, of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth
conniving, conspiring and confederating with one in the total amount of not less than P50,000,000.00? (b)
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Was the predicate act of raiding the public treasury
criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire. Directly or alleged in the information proved by the Prosecution?
indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or
total value of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION RULING:
NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), Re procedural issue:
more or less, through any or a combination or a series of
overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means, The special civil action for certiorari is generally not
described as follows: proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the
trial court because of the availability of another remedy
(a) diverting in several instances, funds from the in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule
operating budget of PCSO to its Confidential/Intelligence 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “the
Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any time order denying the motion for leave of court to file
with minimal restrictions, · and converting, misusing, demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
and/or illegally conveying or transferring the proceeds reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.” It
drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also in is not an insuperable obstacle to this action, however,
several instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitious that the denial of the demurrers to evidence of the
expenditures, for their personal gain and benefit; petitioners was an interlocutory order that did not
terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse of
(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that in
receiving, in several instances, the above-mentioned case of their conviction they may then appeal the
amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from conviction, and assign the denial as among the errors to
PCSO’s accounts, and or unlawfully transferring or be reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal that the situations in
conveying the same into their possession and control which the writ of certiorari may issue should not be
through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and limited, because to do so “x x x would be to destroy its
fictitious expenditures; and comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the
discretion of the court that authority is not wanting to
(c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, show that certiorari is more discretionary than either
authority, relationships, connections or influence, in prohibition or mandamus. In the exercise of our
several instances, to unjustly enrich themselves in the superintending control over other courts, we are to be
aforementioned sum, at the expense of, and the damage guided by all the circumstances of each particular case
‘as the ends of justice may require.’ So it is that the writ

55
 AB
will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial The corpus delicti of plunder is the amassment,
wrong or to do substantial justice.” accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth valued at
not less than Php50,000,000.00. The failure to establish
The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of the corpus delicti should lead to the dismissal of the
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on criminal prosecution.
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to As regards the element that the public officer must have
the contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth
side. This is because the Court has the bounden worth at least P50,000,000.00, the Prosecution adduced
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of no evidence showing that either GMA or Aguas or even
discretion whenever and wherever it is committed. Thus, Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or
notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of acquired ill-gotten wealth of any amount. There was also
the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by the
as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that
certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse the CIFs [Confidential/Intelligence Funds] of the PCSO
of discretion. had been diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.

Re first substantive issue: The Prosecution did not (b) The Prosecution failed to prove the predicate act of
properly allege and prove the existence of conspiracy raiding the public treasury (under Section 2 (b) of
among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended)

A perusal of the information suggests that what the To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the
Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy public treasury, the key is to look at the accompanying
to commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse or
of their collective actions prior to, during and after the malversation of public funds [See Sec. 1(d) of RA 7080].
implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did This process is conformable with the maxim of statutory
not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused construction noscitur a sociis, by which the correct
was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy construction of a particular word or phrase that is
or a chain conspiracy. ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various
meanings may be made by considering the company of
We are not unmindful of the holding in Estrada v. the words in which the word or phrase is found or with
Sandiganabayan [G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, which it is associated. Verily, a word or phrase in a
377 SCRA 538, 556] to the effect that an information statute is always used in association with other words or
alleging conspiracy is sufficient if the information alleges phrases, and its meaning may, therefore, be modified or
conspiracy either: (1) with the use of the word conspire, restricted by the latter. To convert connotes the act of
or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, using or disposing of another’s property as if it were
connive, collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of the basic one’s own; to misappropriate means to own, to take
facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a something for one’s own benefit; misuse means “a good,
person of common understanding would know what is substance, privilege, or right used improperly,
being conveyed, and with such precision as would unforeseeably, or not as intended;” and malversation
enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a occurs when “any public officer who, by reason of the
subsequent indictment based on the same facts. We are duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
not talking about the sufficiency of the information as to property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
the allegation of conspiracy, however, but rather the misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment
identification of the main plunderer sought to be or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such
prosecuted under R.A. No. 7080 as an element of the public funds, or property, wholly or partially.” The
crime of plunder. Such identification of the main common thread that binds all the four terms together is
plunderer was not only necessary because the law that the public officer used the property taken.
required such identification, but also because it was Considering that raids on the public treasury is in the
essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the accused company of the four other terms that require the use of
to be properly informed of the charges they were being the property taken, the phrase raids on the public
made answerable for. The main purpose of requiring the treasury similarly requires such use of the property
various elements of the crime charged to be set out in taken. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in
the information is to enable all the accused to suitably contending that the mere accumulation and gathering
prepare their defense because they are presumed to constituted the forbidden act of raids on the public
have no independent knowledge of the facts that treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis,
constituted the offense charged. raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the
property taken impliedly for his personal benefit.
Despite the silence of the information on who the main
plunderer or the mastermind was, the Sandiganbayan As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show
readily condemned GMA in its resolution dated where the money went but, more importantly, that GMA
September 10, 2015 as the mastermind despite the and Aguas had personally benefited from the same.
absence of the specific allegation in the information to Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of
that effect. Even worse, there was no evidence that raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.
substantiated such sweeping generalization.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for
In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions
main plunderer should be fatal to the cause of the State issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the
against the petitioners for violating the rights of each Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10,
accused to be informed of the charges against each of 2015; GRANTS the petitioners’ respective demurrers to
them. evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-
0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
Re second substantive issues: ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of
evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from
(a) No proof of amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no
ill-gotten wealth of at least Php50 Million was adduced pronouncements on costs of suit.
against GMA and Aguas.
13. Go-Tan vs. Tan

56
 AB
FACTS: On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan determination which cannot be done by this Court in a
(petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married.3 petition for review; that respondents cannot be
Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra characterized as indispensable or necessary parties,
Danielle4 and Kristen Denise.5 On January 12, 2005, since their presence in the case is not only unnecessary
barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a but altogether illegal, considering the non-inclusion of in-
Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary laws as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262.
Protective Order (TPO)6 against Steven and her
parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. ISSUE:
Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that
Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing RULING: The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.
verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in
violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''violence against
(i)7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,8 otherwise known women and their children'' as "any act or a series of acts
as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children committed by any person against a woman who is his
Act of 2004." wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice9 whom he has a common child, or against her child
granting petitioner's prayer for a TPO. whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the
family abode, which result in or is likely to result in
On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
Dismiss with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery,
Protection Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
Petition,10 contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction liberty."
over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. While the said provision provides that the offender be
related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not
Opposition to respondents' Motion to Dismiss arguing preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy
that respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under under the RPC.
a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the
protection and safety of victims of violence. Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides
for the suppletory application of the RPC, thus:
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution
dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this
that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws,
not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. shall have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied)
9262 under the well-known rule of law "expressio unius
est exclusio alterius." Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:

On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
for Reconsideration contending that the doctrine of Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be
necessary implication should be applied in the broader punishable under special laws are not subject to the
interests of substantial justice and due process. provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on specially provide the contrary. (Emphasis supplied)
the Verified Motion for Reconsideration arguing that
petitioner's liberal construction unduly broadened the Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code
provisions of R.A. No. 9262 since the relationship may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
between the offender and the alleged victim was an punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in
essential condition for the application of R.A. No. 9262. which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution denying With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy
petitioner's under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to
R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of
Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said
that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their
No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
provisions of the law. suppletorily.

Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 must be Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A.
understood in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for the suppletory achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and, act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
accordingly, the provision on "conspiracy" under Article 8 modality of participation of each of them becomes
of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262; secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.23
that Steven and respondents had community of design
and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262
financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against
ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing women and their children may be committed by an
her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically; that offender through another, thus:
respondents should be included as indispensable or
necessary parties for complete resolution of the case. SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their
Children. - The crime of violence against women and
On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not their children is committed through any of the following
covered by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof acts:
explicitly provides that the offender should be related to
the victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a xxx
dating or sexual relationship; that allegations on the
conspiracy of respondents require a factual

57
 AB
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless ATM. When Manaban asked Bautista what was the
conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or problem, Bautista replied that no money came out from
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the machine. According to Manaban, Bautista appeared
the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be to be intoxicated.
limited to, the following acts:
Manaban looked at the receipt issued to Bautista and
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public saw that the receipt indicated that a wrong PIN was
or private places; entered. Manaban informed Bautista that the ATM
captured Bautista’s ATM card because he entered the
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the wrong PIN. He then advised Bautista to return the
residence of the woman or her child; following day when the staff in charge of servicing the
ATM would be around.
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the
property of the woman or her child against her/his will; Bautista replied that he needed the money very badly
and then resumed pounding on the ATM. Manaban tried
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or to stop Bautista and called by telephone the ATM service
inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her personnel to pacify Bautista. Bautista talked to the ATM
child; and service personnel and Manaban heard him shouting
invectives and saw him pounding and kicking the ATM
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x again.
x. (Emphasis supplied)
When Manaban failed to pacify Bautista, Manaban fired
In addition, the protection order that may be issued for a warning shot in the air. Bautista then faced him and
the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against told him not to block his way because he needed the
the woman or her child may include money very badly. Bautista allegedly raised his shirt and
showed his gun which was tucked in his waist. Manaban
individuals other than the offending husband, thus: stepped back and told Bautista not to draw his gun,
otherwise he would shoot.
SEC. 8. Protection Orders. – x x x The protection orders
that may be issued under this Act shall include any, However, Bautista allegedly kept on moving toward
some or all of the following reliefs: Manaban, who again warned Bautista not to come near
him or he would be forced to shoot him. Bautista
(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to suddenly turned his back and was allegedly about to
commit or committing, personally or through another, draw his gun. Fearing that he would be shot first,
any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act; Manaban pulled the trigger and shot Bautista.
1avvphi1.net
Manaban recounted that he then went inside the bank
(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, and called the police and his agency to report the
annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise incident. While he was inside the bank, a fellow security
communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly; x guard arrived and asked what happened. Manaban
x x (Emphasis supplied) answered, "wala yan, lasing."

Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal Later, a mobile patrol car arrived. Manaban related the
construction of the law, thus: incident to the police officer and informed him that
Bautista was still alive and had a gun. Manaban then
SEC. 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally surrendered his service firearm to the police officer.
construed to promote the protection and safety of victims According to Manaban, he fired his gun twice – once in
of violence against women and their children. (Emphasis the air as a warning shot and the second time at Bautista
supplied) who was about four meters from him.19

It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law24 On cross-examination, Manaban further explained that
and that this intent must be effectuated by the courts. In after he fired the warning shot, Bautista kept coming
the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262 toward him. Manaban pointed his gun at Bautista and
reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal warned him not to come closer. When Bautista turned
construction as will best ensure the attainment of the his back, Manaban thought Bautista was about to draw
object of the law according to its true intent, meaning his gun when he placed his right hand on his waist.
and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of Fearing for his life, he pulled the trigger and shot
violence against women and children. Manaban. According to Manaban, "[n]oong makita ko
siya na pabalikwas siya, na sadya bubunot ng baril, sa
takot ko na baka maunahan niya ako at mapatay, doon
JUSTIFYING ko na rin nakalabit yung gatilyo ng baril." Manaban
declared that it did not occur to him to simply disable the
CIRCUMSTANCES AND victim for fear that Bautista would shoot him first.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES  The trial court held that the defense failed to
establish self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
Defense of self, relatives, and strangers (Art. 11[1], According to the trial court, unlawful aggression,
[2], and [3]) which is the most essential element to support the
theory of self-defense, was lacking in this case. The
1. Manaban vs. CA trial court found that, contrary to Manaban’s claim,
Bautista was not about to draw his gun to shoot
Facts: Manaban, the accused, testified that he was Manaban. Evidence show that Bautista’s gun was
employed by Eagle Star Security Agency as a security still tucked in his waist inside a locked holster.
guard and was assigned at BPI Kalayaan. On 10 Furthermore, the trial court held that Bautista could
October 1996, he was on duty from 7:00 p.m. until 7:00 not have surprised Manaban with a preemptive
a.m. the following day. attack because Manaban himself testified that he
already had his gun pointed at Bautista when they
Manaban narrated that on 11 October 1996, about 1:40 were facing each other. The trial court likewise
a.m., Bautista tried to withdraw money from the ATM. rejected Manaban’s claim of exemption from criminal
Manaban then saw Bautista pounding and kicking the
58
 AB
liability because he acted under the impulse of an shoot him, Manaban could have easily disabled Bautista
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. The by shooting his arm or leg considering that Manaban’s
trial court held that the requisites for the exempting firearm was already aimed at Bautista.
circumstance of uncontrollable fear under paragraph
6, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code are not Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must
present in this case. However, the trial court credited face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be
Manaban with two mitigating circumstances: avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.38 Absent
voluntary surrender and obfuscation. such actual or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is
nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the
Issue: life or inflicting injuries on another.

1. The Respondent Court gravely erred in ignoring 2. Senoja vs. People

petitioner’s self-defense on the sole fact that the
entrance of the deceased victim’s wound was from the Facts: 1. On April 16, 1997 at about 11 o’clock in the
back. morning, Crisanto Reguyal, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica,
Miguel Lumasac, and Exequiel Senoja were in the hut of
2. The Respondent Court gravely erred in concluding Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora,
that petitioner failed to establish unlawful aggression just drinking gin;
because the holster of the victim was still in a lock
position. 2. Leon Lumasac suddenly arrived holding a bolo and
hacked the doorpost of Crisanto’s hut, angrily
3. Granting arguendo that petitioner made a mistake in demanding for his brother, Miguel Lumasac, whom he
his appreciation that there was an attempt on the part of suspected of drying up the ricefield he was plowing;
the deceased victim to draw his gun who executed
"bumalikwas," such mistake of fact is deemed justified. 3. At this time, Miguel Lumasac was no longer inside the
hut but fetching water;
Ruling: In this case, there was no unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim. First, Bautista was shot at the 4. To prevent Leon Lumasac from entering the hut,
back as evidenced by the point of entry of the bullet. Exequiel Senoja (appellant) and Jose Calica stood by
Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun was still inside the door while simultaneously trying to pacify Leon
a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third, Lumasac;
when Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban
was already pointing his service firearm at Bautista. 5. Exequiel Senoja with a knife then went outside and
These circumstances clearly belie Manaban’s claim of tried to pacify Leon Lumasac but the latter angered by
unlawful aggression on Bautista's part. the gestures of the former tried to hack Exequiel Senoja;

When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect 6. To avoid any injury, Exequiel Senoja embraced Leon
admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him which gave an opportunity to disarm the duo. Jose
to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.27 The Calica got the bolo of Leon and threw it away while Fidel
accused must establish by clear and convincing Senoja took the "colonial" knife of Exequiel;
evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are
present.28 7. Jose Calica and Fidel Senoja were able to pacify Leon
Lumasac so they invited him to get inside the hut. Inside
Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal the hut, Leon Lumasac tried to box Fidel Senoja for
Code, the three requisites to prove self-defense as a siding with his brother, Miguel, but was prevented by
justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused Exequiel Senoja who held Leon’s hands;
from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means 8. After a while, Leon Lumasac left but returned and
employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) angrily demanded for his bolo. Jose Calica gave his own
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused bolo with a sabbard to replace the bolo of Leon which he
or the person defending himself.29 Unlawful aggression threw away;
is an indispensable requisite of self-defense.30 Self-
defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the 9. With Jose Calica’s bolo in him, Leon Lumasac left but
person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful only after leaving a threat that something will happen to
aggression.31 Thus, without prior unlawful and Exequiel Senoja for siding with his brother;
unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no
complete or incomplete self-defense.32 10. After walking for about 10 meters away from the hut,
Leon Lumasac turned around and saw Exequiel Senoja
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at on his way home following him;
least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a
person.33 A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is 11. Leon Lumasac walked back to meet Exequiel Senoja
not considered unlawful aggression,34 unless the threat and upon reaching him, the former suddenly and
is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the treacherously hacked the latter at the left side of his
wrongful intent to cause injury.35 There must be an head and right thigh;
actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof, which puts the defendant’s life in real peril. 12. Unable to evade the treacherous attack by Leon
Lumasac who persisted in his criminal design, Exequiel
The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to Senoja drew his "colonial" knife and stabbed Leon
draw his gun when he turned his back at Manaban is Lumasac in self-defense, inflicting upon him multiple
mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was already wounds which caused his death.
aiming his loaded firearm at Bautista when the latter
turned his back. In that situation, it was Bautista whose Issue: The question that must be resolved is whether or
life was in danger considering that Manaban, who had not the victim was the unlawful aggressor as the
already fired a warning shot, was pointing his firearm at appellant’s testimony pictures him to be.
Bautista. Bautista, who was a policeman, would have
realized this danger to his life and would not have Ruling: The Court rules in the negative.
attempted to draw his gun which was still inside a locked
holster tucked in his waist. Furthermore, if Manaban The victim had already left the hut and was ten (10)
really feared that Bautista was about to draw his gun to meters away from it. There is no showing that the victim,
59
 AB
who was drunk, was aware that appellant was following Hospital where, however, the victim was declared dead
him, or that the appellant called out to him so that he (the on arrival.
victim) had to turn around and notice him. It is clear that
at that point in time, the victim was simply walking Issue: Whether or not appellant acted in complete self-
toward his home; he had stopped being an aggressor. It defense in killing Jaime Ballesteros, as claimed, thus
was the appellant who, smarting from the earlier incident absolving him from criminal liability.
in the hut where Leon told him "hindi ka tatagal, sa loob
ng tatlong araw mayroong mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi Ruling: For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary
ngayon, bukas" repeated three times, wanted a that one be assaulted or that he be attacked, or at least
confrontation. Appellant stabbed or poked the victim in that he be threatened with an attack in an immediate
the left buttock resulting in the non-fatal wound, and manner, as, for example, brandishing a knife with which
when the latter turned around, successively stabbed and to stab him or pointing a gun to be discharged against
hacked the victim in the armpit and chest until he fell. In him. 12 So indispensable is unlawful aggression in self-
all, the victim suffered nine (9) wounds. defense that, without it, there is no occasion to speak of
the other two requisites for such a defense because both
It is the well-considered finding of this Court that while circumstances presuppose an unlawful aggression.
Leon Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he
left the hut to go home, accused Exequiel Senoja was The theory of the defense is that the unlawful aggression
now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their started in the basketball court, when the victim tried to
confrontation. It bears mentioning that appellant poke a fork on the neck of appellant, and continued
contradicted himself with respect for (sic) the reason why thereafter. Even on the elementary rule that when the
he left the hut. First, it was to pacify Leon and the aggressor leaves, the unlawful aggression ceases, it
second reason was that he was going home. follows that when appellant and Jaime heeded the
advice of the barangay tanod for them to go home, the
As for appellant’s injuries, it is clear that they were unlawful aggression had ended. Consequently, since
sustained in the course of the victim’s attempt to defend unlawful aggression no longer existed, appellant had no
himself as shown by the lacerated wound on the victim’s right whatsoever to kill or even wound the former
left palm, a defensive wound. aggressor. The supposed continuation of the unlawful
aggression which could have justified self-defense would
Hence, it is essential to self-defense that it should be a have been the circumstance that Jaime persisted in his
defense against a present unlawful attack. design to attack appellant while the latter was already in
front of his house. This fact, however, the defense
What is the standard to use to determine whether the ruefully failed to establish.
person defending himself is confronted by a real and
imminent peril to his life or limb? We rule that the test The case at bar calls to mind the scenario and logical
should be: does the person invoking the defense believe, view that when a person had inflicted slight physical
in due exercise of his reason, his life or limb is in injuries on another, without any intention to inflict other
danger? After all, the rule of law founded on justice and injuries, and the latter attacked the former, the one
reason: Actus no facit remin, nisi mens sit rea. Hence, making the attack was an unlawful aggressor. The attack
the guilt of the accused must depend upon the made was evidently a retaliation. And, we find this an
circumstances as they reasonably appear to him.15 opportune occasion to emphasize that retaliation is
different from an act of self-defense. In retaliation, the
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, aggression that was begun by the injured party already
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Hence, defense, the aggression was still existing when the
when an inceptual/unlawful aggression ceases to exist, aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making
the one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the a defense. 15 We find these observations apropos to the
former aggressor.17 After the danger has passed, one is situation presented by the instant case.
not justified in following up his adversary to take his life.
The conflict for blood should be avoided if possible.18 It will be recalled that, as claimed by appellant, the
An assault on his person, he cannot punish when the unlawful aggression complained of also took place in
danger or peril is over. When the danger is over, the front of his house, where Jaime allegedly tried to attack
right of self-defense ceases. His right is defense, not him with a balisong, and not only in the basketball court.
retribution. To support his theory of continuing aggression, appellant
alleged that whenever the victim was drunk, he would
3. People vs. Decena look for trouble. Again, the defense utterly failed to prove
this hypothesis. On the contrary, the wife of the victim
Facts: On Christmas Day of 1990, at around 4:00 P.M., testified that the latter has no such record in their
said Luzviminda was playing with her siblings at home. barangay 16 and, significantly, her said testimony was
She recalled being asked by her mother, Teresita never refuted nor objected to by appellant.
Ballesteros, to fetch her father, Jaime Ballesteros, who
was then watching a game in the basketball court. On Witnesses for and against the appellant testified that
her way to the hardcourt, Luzviminda met her father throughout the incident Jaime was inebriated and that he
walking home in an intoxicated state. Suddenly, she saw was staggering or wobbling as he walked. 17 If he had
appellant rushing towards her father with a long bladed such difficulty even in performing the normal bodily
weapon, prompting Luzviminda to warn her father to run function of locomotion, it could not be expected that he
for safety by shouting in the vernacular "Batik kila, would muster enough courage to persist in attacking and
Tatay!" Instead, Jaime simply raised his hand, thus attempting to kill appellant, as posited by the defense,
allowing appellant to stab him on the right chest just considering that the latter was decidedly stronger than
below the nipple. Appellant then fled from the crime him.
scene, while the victim also managed to run but
stumbled and fell to the ground. 6 4. People vs. Dela Cruz

Finding that her father was too heavy for her to carry, Facts: The victim Daniel Macapagal, a married man,
Luzviminda called for her mother at their house, which had been a live-in partner of prosecution witness Ma.
was only fifteen meters away from the scene of the Luz Perla San Antonio for about two to three years
crime, saying: "Mother, come! My father has been before San Antonio took appellant Roberto de la Cruz,
stabbed by George Decena." Her mother immediately widower, as lover and live-in partner. At the time of the
called for a tricycle and rushed Jaime to the Provincial incident on May 27, 1996, appellant and San Antonio

60
 AB
were living in a house being rented by San Antonio at barrio of Sta. Isabel, City of San Pablo, Province of
094 Valino District, Magsaysay Norte, Cabanatuan City Laguna; that for sometime prior to the stabbing of the
(pp. 2-3, TSN, July 6, 1996). deceased by defendant and appellant, in the evening of
September 20, 1942, the former had been courting the
"At around 6:00 o’clock in the evening on May 27, 1996, latter in vain, and that on one occasion, about one month
San Antonio and appellant were resting in their bedroom before that fatal night, Amado Capina snatched a
when they heard a car stop in front of their house and handkerchief belonging to her, bearing her nickname
later knocks on their door. San Antonio opened the front "Aveling," while it was being washed by her cousin,
door and she was confronted by Macapagal who made Josefa Tapay.
his way inside the house holding a gun in his hand,
despite San Antonio’s refusal to let him in. He seemed to On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a
be looking for something or somebody as Macapagal dog under her house, Amado approached her and spoke
walked passed San Antonio and inspected the two to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he
opened bedrooms of the house. He then went to the thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
close bedroom where the appellant was and banged at touched her breasts, on account of which Avelina,
the door with his gun while yelling ‘Come out. Come out’ resolute and quick-tempered girl, slapped Amado, gave
(p. 4, Ibid.). Appellant then opened the door but he was him fist blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to
greeted by Macapagal’s gun which was pointed at him. herself, until the following morning when she informed
Appellant immediately closed the door while Macapagal her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a
continued banging at it. When appellant again opened long fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-
the door moments later, he was himself armed with a .38 protection.
caliber revolver. The two at that instant immediately
grappled for each other’s firearm. A few moments later On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed
shots were heard. Macapagal fell dead on the floor. up the house of defendant and appellant, and
surreptitiously entered the room where she was
Issue: sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the
intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for
Ruling: help, which awakened her parents and brought them to
her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden
I. Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of
self-defense, would presuppose an actual, Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, asking for forgiveness; and
sudden and unexpected attack or imminent when Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat Amado,
danger on the life and limb of a person – not a her husband prevented her from doing so, stating that
mere threatening or intimidating attitude - but Amado probably did not realize what he was doing.
most importantly, at the time the defensive Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro
action was taken against the aggressor. Lozada, and for Amado's parents, the following morning.
Amado's parents came to the house of Nicolas Jaurigue
True, the victim barged into the house of accused- and apologized for the misconduct of their son; and as
appellant and his live-in partner and, banging at the Nicolas Jaurigue was then angry, he told them to end the
master bedroom door with his firearm, he yelled, "come conversation, as he might not be able to control himself.
out." Accused-appellant, however, upon opening the
door and seeing the victim pointing a gun at him, was In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received
able to prevent at this stage harm to himself by promptly information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the
closing the door. He could have stopped there. Instead, neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person
accused-appellant, taking his .38 caliber revolver, again and that she had even asked him to elope with her and
opened the bedroom door and, brandishing his own that if he should not marry her, she would take poison;
firearm, forthwith confronted the victim. At this and that Avelina again received information of Amado's
encounter, accused-appellant would be quite hard put to bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same
still claim self-defense. day.

At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day,

II. The second element of self-defense would September 20, 1942, Nicolas Jaurigue went to the
demand that the means employed to quell the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was
unlawful aggression were reasonable and the treasurer, in their barrio, just across the provincial
necessary. road from his house, to attend religious services, and sat
on the front bench facing the altar with the other officials
The number of the wounds sustained by the deceased in of the organization and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro
this case would negate the existence of this Lozada. Inside the chapel it was quite bright as there
indispensable component of self-defense. The autopsy were electric lights.
report would show that the victim sustained four gunshot
wounds. Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the
chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the
purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the
III. It would be essential, finally, for self-defense to bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado
be aptly invoked that there be lack of sufficient Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon
provocation on the part of the person defending observing the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado
himself. Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting
and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word,
When accused-appellant, opening the bedroom door the Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand
second time confronted, instead of merely taking on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this
precautionary measures against, the victim with his own highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado Capina,
gun he had taken from the cabinet, accused-appellant Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and
could no longer correctly argue that there utterly was no honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife
provocation on his part. marked Exhibit B, which she had in a pocket of her
dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's offending
5. People vs. Jaurigue hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she
quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed
Facts: That both the defendant and appellant Avelina Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck,
Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the inflicting upon him a wound about 4 1/2 inches deep,
which was necessarily mortal. Nicolas Jaurigue, who
61
 AB
was seated on one of the front benches, saw Amado the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and
bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh,
seeing his daughter still holding the bloody knife, he without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with
approached her and asked: "Why did you do that," and electric lights, and there were already several people,
answering him Avelina said: "Father, I could not endure about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own
anymore." Amado Capina died from the wound a few father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of
minutes later. Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada, who the organization; and under the circumstances, there
was also in the same chapel, approached Avelina and was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.
asked her why she did that, and Avelina surrendered And when she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base
herself, saying: "Kayo na po ang bahala sa aquin," of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal
meaning: "I hope you will take care of me," or more wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing his death a few
correctly, "I place myself at your disposal." moments later, the means employed by her in the
defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under
Issue: the facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot be
legally declared completely exempt from criminal
Ruling: The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an liability..
unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a state of
legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor 6. People vs. Narvaez
cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not
more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a Facts: Appellant was among those persons from
woman who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the northern and central Luzon who went to Mindanao in
offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal 1937 and settled in Maitum, a former sitio of Kiamba and
liability, since such killing cannot be considered a crime now a separate municipality of South Cotabato. He
from the moment it became the only means left for her to established his residence therein, built his house,
protect her honor from so great an outrage. cultivated the area, and was among those who petitioned
then President Manuel L. Quezon to order the
As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a subdivision of the defunct Celebes Plantation and nearby
woman is justified in killing her aggressor, in the defense Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for
of her honor. Thus, where the deceased grabbed the distribution among the settlers.
defendant in a dark night at about 9 o'clock, in an
isolated barrio trail, holding her firmly from behind, Shortly thereafter, Fleischer and Company, headed by
without warning and without revealing his identity, and, in George W. Fleischer, an American landowner in Negros
the struggle that followed, touched her private parts, and Oriental, filed sales application No. 21983 on June 3,
that she was unable to free herself by means of her 1937 over the same area formerly leased and later
strength alone, she was considered justified in making abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company, covering
use of a pocket knife in repelling what she believed to be 1,017.2234 hectares.
an attack upon her honor, and which ended in his death,
since she had no other means of defending herself, and Meanwhile, the subdivision was ordered and a public
consequently exempt from all criminal liability (People land surveyor did the actual survey in 1941 but the
vs. De la Cruz, 16 Phil., 344). survey report was not submitted until 1946 because of
the outbreak of the second world war. According to the
And a woman, in defense of her honor, was perfectly survey, only 300 hectares Identified as Lots Nos. 22, 26
justified in inflicting wounds on her assailant with a bolo and 38, Ps. 176 Kiamba, were set aside for Sales
which she happened to be carrying at the time, even Application No. 21983, while the rest were subdivided
though her cry for assistance might have been heard by into sublots of 5 to 6 hectares each to be distributed
people nearby, when the deceased tried to assault her in among the settlers (pp. 32-33, G.R. No. L-45504).
a dark and isolated place, while she was going from her
house to a certain tienda, for the purpose of making The 300 hectares set aside for the sales application of
purchases (United States vs. Santa Ana and Ramos, 22 Fleischer and Company was declared open for
Phil., 249). disposition, appraised and advertised for public auction.
At the public auction held in Manila on August 14, 1948,
In the case, however, in which a sleeping woman was Fleischer and Company was the only bidder for
awakened at night by someone touching her arm, and, P6,000.00. But because of protests from the settlers the
believing that some person was attempting to abuse her, corresponding award in its favor was held in abeyance,
she asked who the intruder was and receiving no reply, while an investigator was sent by the Director of Lands
attacked and killed the said person with a pocket knife, it to Kiamba in the person of Atty. Jose T. Gozon Atty.
was held that, notwithstanding the woman's belief in the Gozon came back after ten days with an amicable
supposed attempt, it was not sufficient provocation or settlement signed by the representative of the settlers.
aggression to justify her completely in using deadly This amicable settlement was later repudiated by the
weapon. Although she actually believed it to be the settlers, but the Director of Lands, acting upon the report
beginning of an attempt against her, she was not of Atty. Gozon, approved the same and ordered the
completely warranted in making such a deadly assault, formal award of the land in question to Fleischer and
as the injured person, who turned out to be her own Company. The settlers appealed to the Secretary of
brother-in-law returning home with his wife, did not do Agriculture and Natural Resources, who, however,
any other act which could be considered as an attempt affirmed the decision in favor of the company.
against her honor (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil.,
391).. On May 29, 1950, the settlers filed Civil Case No. 240 in
the CFI of Cotabato which then consisted only of one
In the instant case, if defendant and appellant had killed sala, for the purpose of annulling the order of the
Amado Capina, when the latter climbed up her house Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources which
late at night on September 15, 1942, and surreptitiously affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the
entered her bedroom, undoubtedly for the purpose of contested land to the company. The settlers as plaintiffs,
raping her, as indicated by his previous acts and lost that case in view of the amicable settlement which
conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she could they had repudiated as resulting from threats and
have been perfectly justified in killing him, as shown by intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and fraudulent
the authorities cited above.. machination on the part of the company. They appealed
to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 28858-R) which
According to the facts established by the evidence and likewise affirmed on August 16, 1965 the decision of the
found by the learned trial court in this case, when the CFI in favor of the company.
deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on
62
 AB
This resulted in the ouster of the settlers by an order of incident is narrated in the People's Brief as above-
the CFI dated September 24, 1966, from the land which quoted. Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter,
they had been occupying for about 30 years. Among bringing with him shotgun No. 1119576 and claiming he
those ejected was the appellant who, to avoid trouble, shot two persons (Exh. Pp. 31, Defense Exhibits).
voluntarily dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost
of around P20,000.00, and transferred to his other house Issue:
which he built in 1962 or 1963 near the highway. The
second house is not far from the site of the dismantled I. First Assignment of Error: That the lower
house. Its ground floor has a store operated by Mrs. court erred in convicting defendant-appellant
June Talens who was renting a portion thereof. He also despite the fact that he acted in defense of
transferred his store from his former residence to the his person; and
house near the highway. Aside from the store, he also II. Second Assignment of Error: That the court
had a rice mill located about 15 meters east of the house a quo also erred in convicting defendant-
and a concrete pavement between the rice mill and the appellant although he acted in defense of
house, which is used for drying grains and copra. his rights (p. 20 of Appellant's Brief, p. 145,
rec.).
On November 14, 1966, appellant was among the
settlers on whose behalf Jose V. Gamboa and other Ruling: There is no question, therefore, that there was
leaders filed Civil Case No. 755 in the CFI of Cotabato, aggression on the part of the victims: Fleischer was
Branch I. to obtain an injunction or annulment of the ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the
order of award with prayer for preliminary injunction. fencing. This was indeed aggression, not on the person
During the pendency of this case, appellant on February of appellant, but on his property rights.
21, 1967 entered into a contract of lease with the
company whereby he agreed to lease an area of I. Conformably to the foregoing provisions, the
approximately 100 to 140 square meters of Lot No. 38 deceased had no right to destroy or cause
from the company (Exh. 9, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits for damage to appellant's house, nor to close his
Defense) for a consideration of P16.00 monthly. accessibility to the highway while he was
According to him, he signed the contract although the pleading with them to stop and talk things over
ownership of the land was still uncertain, in order to with him. The assault on appellant's property,
avoid trouble, until the question of ownership could be therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as
decided. He never paid the agreed rental, although he contemplated by law.
alleges that the milling job they did for Rubia was
considered payment. On June 25, 1968, deceased Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
Fleischer wrote him a letter with the following tenor: threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind
(People vs. Encomiendas, 46 SCRA 522).
You have not paid six months rental to Fleischers & Co.,
Inc. for that portion of land in which your house and In the case at bar, there was an actual physical invasion
ricemill are located as per agreement executed on of appellant's property which he had the right to resist,
February 21, 1967. You have not paid as as even after pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
repeated attempts of collection made by Mr. Flaviano which provides:
Rubia and myself.
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
In view of the obvious fact that you do not comply with the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
the agreement, I have no alternative but to terminate our disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
agreement on this date. force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
I am giving you six months to remove your house, invasion or usurpation of his property (Emphasis
ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps from the land supplied).
of Fleischers & Co., Inc. This six- month period shall
expire on December 31, 1966. A review of the circumstances prior to the shooting as
borne by the evidence reveals that five persons,
In the event the above constructions have not been consisting of the deceased and their three laborers, were
removed within the six- month period, the company shall doing the fencing and chiselling of the walls of
cause their immediate demolition (Exhibit 10, p. 2, appellant's house. The fence they were putting up was
supra). made of bamboo posts to which were being nailed
strands of barbed wire in several layers. Obviously, they
On August 21, 1968, both deceased, together with their were using tools which could be lethal weapons, such as
laborers, commenced fencing Lot 38 by putting bamboo nail and hammer, bolo or bamboo cutter, pliers, crowbar,
posts along the property line parallel to the highway. and other necessary gadgets. Besides, it was not
Some posts were planted right on the concrete drier of disputed that the jeep which they used in going to the
appellant, thereby cutting diagonally across its center place was parked just a few steps away, and in it there
(pp. 227-228, t.s.n., Vol. 2), with the last post just was a gun leaning near the steering wheel. When the
adjacent to appellant's house (p. 231, t.s.n., supra). The appellant woke up to the sound of the chiselling on his
fence, when finished, would have the effect of shutting walls, his first reaction was to look out of the window.
off the accessibility to appellant's house and rice mill Then he saw the damage being done to his house,
from the highway, since the door of the same opens to compounded by the fact that his house and rice mill will
the Fleischers' side. The fencing continued on that be shut off from the highway by the fence once it is
fateful day of August 22, 1968, with the installation of finished. He therefore appealed to his compadre, the
four strands of barbed wire to the posts. deceased Rubia, to stop what they were doing and to
talk things over with him. But deceased Fleischer
At about 2:30 p.m. on the said day, appellant who was answered angrily with 'gademit' and directed his men to
taking a nap after working on his farm all morning, was proceed with what they were doing.
awakened by some noise as if the wall of his house was
being chiselled. Getting up and looking out of the The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering
window, he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer the continuance of the fencing would have resulted in the
was indeed chiselling the wall of his house with a further chiselling of the walls of appellant's house as well
crowbar (p. 129, t.s.n., Vol. 6), while deceased Rubia as the closure of the access to and from his house and
was nailing the barbed wire and deceased Fleischer was rice mill-which were not only imminent but were actually
commanding his laborers. The jeep used by the in progress.
deceased was parked on the highway. The rest of the
63
 AB
II. The reasonableness of the resistance is also a Petitioner’s account is substantially corroborated by
requirement of the justifying circumstance of Caparoso.
self-defense or defense of one's rights under
paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. Version of the Prosecution:

When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, Natividad Payud, an eyewitness to the incident, testified
killing his two victims, his resistance was that while the group of the deceased Butad, petitioner,
disproportionate to the attack. and the spouses Cruz and Andresa Villamor was having
a drinking spree, Randy suddenly entered the scene.
We find, however, that the third element of defense of Butad, appearing surprised, thrust a glass of Tanduay
property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient provocation on near Randy’s mouth and uttered the words, "I will shoot
the part of appellant who was defending his property. As you." Payud is certain that at this point, Butad was not
a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all on his holding any gun. Andresa Villamor, another eyewitness
part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened to the incident, confirmed Payud’s testimony that Butad
by the noise produced by the victims and their laborers. was holding a glass and not a gun when he uttered
His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk those words.
things over with him was no provocation at all.
Petitioner reacted to Butad’s statement saying, "Just try
Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the deceased to shoot my child because I’ll never fight for him because
was not justifiable, since not all the elements for he is a spoiled brat." Andresa Villamor then chided
justification are present. He should therefore be held Butad and said, "Do not say that tiyo[,] because it’s [sic]
responsible for the death of his victims, but he could be the son of Nilo Sabang."
credited with the special mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense, pursuant to paragraph 6, Article 13 Unexpectedly, a person appeared on the scene and
of the Revised Penal Code. punched Butad causing the latter to fall down lying
partially on his back. Petitioner, who was then sitting
a. J. Abad Santos (Dissenting) across Butad, stood up and pulled the gun tucked in
 Self-defense of the Revised Penal Code refers to Butad’s waist. He pointed the gun at Butad and fired a
unlawful aggression on persons, not property. shot at the latter’s chest. Payud and Andresa Villamor
both saw petitioner fire two (2) more shots near Butad’s
b. J. Gutierrez, Jr. (Dissenting) chest.
 It seems to me, however, that an attack on the
person defending his property is an indispensable Issue: Whether petitioner’s insistence on the justifying
element where an accused pleads self-defense but circumstance of defense of relative deserves merit.
what is basically defended is only property.
 Defense of property is not of such importance as the Ruling: In the final analysis, petitioner failed to
right to life and defense of property can only be demonstrate any reason to disturb the findings and
invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
on the person of one entrusted with said property. His conviction of the crime of homicide is certain. Under
 In the case now before Us, there is absolutely no Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is
evidence that an attack was attempted, much less punished by reclusion temporal.
made upon the person of appellant. The mere
utterance "No, gademit proceed, go ahead" is not In order to successfully claim that he acted in defense of
the unlawful aggression which entitles appellant to a relative, the accused must prove the concurrence of
the pela of self-defense. I agree with the majority the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the
opinion that the crime is homicide but without any part of the person killed or injured; (2) reasonable
privileged mitigating circumstance. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression; and (3) the person defending the
7. Sabang vs. People relative had no part in provoking the assailant, should
any provocation been given by the relative attacked.
Facts: Unlawful aggression is a primary and indispensable
requisite without which defense of relative, whether
Version of the Defense: complete or otherwise, cannot be validly invoked.

By the time Butad had joined what was to be his last whether petitioner sensed an imminent threat to his
drinking spree, he was already in a belligerent mood. son’s life. Payud unequivocally testified that petitioner
Earlier that afternoon, he had been chasing after Ramil even dismissed Butad’s utterance saying, "Just try to
Perez when the latter demanded payment for a bet shoot my child because I’ll never fight for him because
Butad had lost over a cockfight. he is a spoiled brat."

The chase was witnessed by Celso Pepito, who would This indicates to us that petitioner did not consider
testify for the defense. As to the shooting itself, testifying Butad’s words a threat at all.
for the defense were petitioner himself, the storekeeper
Sombilon, and an eyewitness, Laurito Caparoso, who These circumstances led the trial court to conclude that
was situated right across the road when the shooting there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Butad
occurred. which could have precipitated petitioner’s actions. This
finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is conclusive
Sombilon testified that when Butad told Randy Sabang, on the Court barring any showing of any arbitrariness or
"I will shoot you," the deceased already had his revolver oversight of material facts that could change the result.
aimed at Randy. At this point, Andresa Villamor, a niece
of the deceased, told Butad, "Please don't, tiyo, he's the Furthermore, the presence of four (4) gunshot wounds
son of Nilo." Petitioner and Caparoso also testified that on Butad’s body negates the claim that the killing was
at that time, Butad had his revolver pointed at Randy. justified but instead indicates a determined effort to kill
Petitioner claimed that he then grabbed the arm of him. Even assuming that it was Butad who initiated the
Butad, attempting to twist it toward his body and away attack, the fact that petitioner was able to wrest the gun
from his son. As they were grappling and the revolver from him signifies that the aggression which Butad had
was pointed towards the body of Butad, petitioner started already ceased. Petitioner became the unlawful
claimed he heard gunshots, and only after the shots aggressor when he continued to shoot Butad even as he
were fired was he able to "take the gun" from Butad. already lay defenseless on the ground.

64
 AB
On this point, the defense’s own witness, Caparoso, said Javier. They were unable to present
in his Counter Affidavit and during direct examination evidence that the victim actually fired his
that after the first shot was fired, he saw petitioner take gun. No spent shells from the .22 caliber
possession of the gun as Butad released his hold of it. It pistol were found and no bullets were
was after petitioner already had the gun that Caparoso recovered from the scene of the incident.
heard more gunshots. Even petitioner admitted that he Javier also tested negative for gunpowder
had an easy time twisting the hand with which Butad was residue. Moreover, the trial court found
supposedly holding his revolver because the latter was appellant Dagani’s account of the incident to
already very drunk having started drinking before noon be incredible and self-serving. In sum, the
that day. defense presented a bare claim of self-
defense without any proof of the existence
8. People vs. Dagani of its requisites.

Facts: Even if it were established that Javier fired his gun as the
appellants so insist, the imminence of the danger to their
Version of the Prosecution: lives had already ceased the moment Dagani held down
the victim and grappled for the gun with the latter. After
At about 4:45 in the afternoon of September 11, 1989, a the victim had been thrown off-balance, there was no
group composed of Ernesto Javier (Javier), Lincoln longer any unlawful aggression that would have
Miran (Miran), and two other individuals had been necessitated the act of killing. When an unlawful
drinking at the canteen located inside the compound of aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who
the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along C.M. resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to
Recto Avenue, Tondo, Manila. All of a sudden, wound the former aggressor. When Javier had been
appellants, who were security officers of the PNR and caught in the struggle for the possession of the gun with
covered by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, appellant Dagani, the grave peril envisaged by appellant
entered the canteen and approached the group. Santiano, which impelled him to fire at the victim, had
Appellant Dagani shoved Miran, causing the latter to fall then ceased to a reasonable extent, and undoubtedly,
from his chair. Dagani then held Javier while Santiano Santiano went beyond the call of self-preservation when
shot Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter. he proceeded to inflict the excessive and fatal injuries on
Javier, even when the alleged unlawful aggression had
Version of the Defense: already ceased.

Appellants testified that they were ordered by their desk The second element of self-defense demands that the
officer to investigate a commotion at the canteen. Upon means employed to neutralize the unlawful aggression
reaching the place, Santiano ordered his co-accused, are reasonable and necessary. It is settled that
Dagani, to enter, while the former waited outside. reasonable necessity of the means employed does not
imply material commensurability between the means of
Dagani approached Javier who had been striking a bottle attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
of beer on the table. Javier then pulled out a .22 caliber equivalence. The circumstances in their entirety which
revolver and attempted to fire at Dagani, but the gun surround the grappling of the firearm by Dagani and
failed to go off. Then suddenly, while outside the Javier, such as the nature and number of gunshot
canteen, Santiano heard gunfire and, from his vantage wounds sustained by the victim which amounted to two
point, he saw Javier and Dagani grappling for a .22 fatal wounds, that Dagani was able to restrain the hands
caliber gun which belonged to Javier. During the course of Javier and push
of the struggle, the gun went off, forcing Santiano to fire
a warning shot. He heard Javier’s gun fire again, so he them away from his body, that Dagani was larger than
decided to rush into the canteen. Santiano then shot Javier and had finished Special Weapons and Tactics
Javier from a distance of less than four meters. (SWAT) hand-to-

Issue: hand combat training, and Javier, as admitted by the

appellants, was inebriated at the time of the incident,25
Ruling: do not justify appellant Santiano’s act of fatally shooting
the victim twice.
I. Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of
self-defense, would presuppose an actual, 9. Palaganas vs. People
sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger on the life and limb of a person – not Facts: On January 16, 1998, around 8:00 in the evening,
a mere threatening or intimidating attitude – brothers Servillano, [Melton] and Michael, all surnamed
but most importantly, at the time the Ferrer were having a drinking spree in their house
defensive action was taken against the because [Melton], who was already living in San
aggressor. To invoke self-defense Fernando, La Union, visited his three brothers and
successfully, there must have been an mother at their house in Sitio Baloking, Poblacion,
unlawful and unprovoked attack that Manaoag, Pangasinan. At 9:45 in the evening, the three
endangered the life of the accused, who was brothers decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke bar
then forced to inflict severe wounds upon located at the corner of Malvar and Rizal Streets,
the assailant by employing reasonable Poblacion, Manaoag to continue their drinking spree and
means to resist the attack. to sing. Inside the karaoke bar, they were having a good
time, singing and drinking beer.
In the instant case, the assertions that it was "quite
probable" that Javier, during the course of the struggle Thereafter, at 10:30 in the evening, Jaime Palaganas
for the firearm, "could have easily killed" the appellants arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio
are uncertain and speculative. There is aggression in Bautista. At that time, only the Ferrer brothers were the
contemplation of the law only when the one attacked customers in the bar. The two groups occupied separate
faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. The peril tables. Later, when Jaime Palaganas was singing,
sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not [Melton] Ferrer sang along with him as he was familiar
just speculative. with the song [My Way]. Jaime however, resented this
and went near the table of the Ferrer brothers and said
II. The defense was unable to prove that there in Pangasinan dialect "As if you are tough guys." Jaime
was unlawful aggression on the part of further said "You are already insulting me in that way."
Then, Jaime struck Servillano Ferrer with the
65
 AB
microphone, hitting the back of his head. A rumble proceeded to the proper authorities for help. Indeed,
ensued between the Ferrer brothers on the one hand, petitioner had several options in avoiding dangers to his
and the Palaganases, on the other hand. Virgilio Bautista life other than confronting the Ferrer brothers with a gun.
did not join the fray as he left the place. During the
rumble, Ferdinand went out of the bar. He was however The fact that petitioner sustained injuries in his left leg
pursued by Michael. When Servillano saw Michael, he and left shoulder, allegedly caused by the stones thrown
also went out and told the latter not to follow Ferdinand. by the Ferrer brothers, does not signify that he was a
Servillano and Michael then went back inside the bar victim of unlawful aggression or that he acted in self-
and continued their fight with Jaime. defense.38 There is no evidence to show that his
wounds were so serious and severe. The superficiality of
Meantime, Edith Palaganas, sister of Jaime and the the injuries sustained by the petitioner is no indication
owner of the bar, arrived and pacified them. Servillano that his life and limb were in actual peril.39
noticed that his wristwatch was missing. Unable to locate
the watch inside the bar, the Ferrer brothers went Petitioner's assertion that, despite the fact that he fired a
outside. They saw Ferdinand about eight (8) meters warning shot, the Ferrer brothers continued to pelt him
away standing at Rizal Street. Ferdinand was pointing at with stones,40 will not matter exonerate him from
them and said to his companion, later identified as criminal liability. Firing a warning shot was not the last
petitioner [Rujjeric] Palaganas, "Oraratan paltog mo and only option he had in order to avoid the stones
lara", meaning "They are the ones, shoot them." thrown by the Ferrer brothers. As stated earlier, he could
Petitioner then shot them hitting Servillano first at the left have run away, or taken cover, or proceeded to the
side of the abdomen, causing him to fall on the ground, proper authorities for help. Petitioner, however, opted to
and followed by [Melton] who also fell to the ground. shoot the Ferrer brothers.
When Servillano noticed that [Melton] was no longer
moving, he told Michael "Bato, bato." Michael picked up II. The second element of self-defense requires
some stones and threw them at petitioner and that the means employed by the person
Ferdinand. The latter then left the place. Afterwards, the defending himself must be reasonably
police officers came and the Ferrer brothers were necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful
brought to the Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor aggression of the victim. The reasonableness of
Hospital in Dagupan. Servillano later discovered that the means employed may take into account the
[Melton] was fatally hit in the head while Michael was hit weapons, the physical condition of the parties
in the right shoulder. and other circumstances showing that there is a
rational equivalence between the means of
Issue: attack and the defense.

Ruling: As we have already found, there was no In the case at bar, the petitioner's act of shooting the
unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers Ferrer brothers was not a reasonable and necessary
which justified the act of petitioner in shooting them. We means of repelling the aggression allegedly initiated by
also ruled that even if the Ferrer brothers provoked the the Ferrer brothers. As aptly stated by the trial court,
petitioner to shoot them, the latter's use of a gun was not petitioner's gun was far deadlier compared to the stones
a reasonable means of repelling the act of the Ferrer thrown by the Ferrer brothers.
brothers in throwing stones. It must also be emphasized
at this point that both the trial court and the appellate Moreover, we stated earlier that when the Ferrer
court found that petitioner failed to established by clear brothers allegedly threw stones at the petitioner, the
and convincing evidence his plea of self-defense. latter had other less harmful options than to shoot the
Ferrer brothers. Such act failed to pass the test of
I. Let it not be forgotten that unlawful aggression is reasonableness of the means employed in preventing or
a primordial element in self-defense.47 It is an repelling an unlawful aggression.
essential and indispensable requisite, for without
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, Avoidance of greater evil (Art. 11[4])
there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or
incomplete self-defense.48 Without unlawful 1. People vs. Ricohermoso
aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to
stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot Facts: At about nine o'clock in the morning of January
and will not be appreciated, even if the other 30, 1965 Geminiano de Leon, together with his thirty-
elements are present.49 To our mind, unlawful three-year old common-law wife Fabiana Rosales, his
aggression, as an element of self-defense, is twenty-four-year old son Marianito de Leon and one
wanting in the instant case. Rizal Rosales, encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio
Tagbacan Silangan, Catanauan, Quezon.
In the case at bar, it is clear that there was no unlawful
aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers that Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which
justified the act of petitioner in shooting them. There Ricohermoso cultivated as kaingin. Geminiano asked
were no actual or imminent danger to the lives of Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest. He
petitioner and Ferdinand when they proceeded and added that he should at least be allowed to taste the
arrived at the videoke bar and saw thereat the Ferrer palay harvested from his land. Ricohermoso answered
brothers. It appears that the Ferrer brothers then were that Geminiano could go to his house anytime and he
merely standing outside the videoke bar and were not would give the latter palay. Geminiano rejoined that he
carrying any weapon when the petitioner arrived with his could not get the palay that morning because he was on
brother Ferdinand and started firing his gun.36 his way to Barrio Bagobasin but, on his return, he would
stop at Ricohermoso's house and get the palay.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Ferrer brothers had
provoked the petitioner to shoot them by pelting the latter When Geminiano returned to Barrio Tagbacan Silangan,
with stones, the shooting of the Ferrer brothers is still he stopped at Ricohermoso's place. It was about two
unjustified. When the Ferrer brothers started throwing o'clock in the afternoon. Geminiano sat on a sack beside
stones, petitioner was not in a state of actual or imminent Fabiana Rosales in front of the house while Marianito
danger considering the wide distance (4-5 meters) of the stood about three meters behind his father. A .22 caliber
latter from the location of the former.37 Petitioner was rifle was slung on Marianito's right shoulder.
not cornered nor trapped in a specific area such that he Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house while
had no way out, nor was his back against the wall. He Severo Padernal was stationed near the eaves of the
was still capable of avoiding the stones by running away house.
or by taking cover. He could have also called or
66
 AB
Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay. The that Vivencio's parents would buy a wedding dress, two
latter, no longer conciliatory and evidently hostile, vestidos, a pair of shoes for the bride, to advance P20
answered in a defiant tone: "Whatever happens, I will not for fetching the sponsors in the wedding and to repair the
give you palay." Geminiano remonstrated: "Why did you roof of one Feliciano Martinez' house, an uncle of the
tell us to pass by your house, if you were not willing to appellant.
give the palay?"
On February 21, 1955 as the date of the wedding was
At that juncture, as if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso approaching, the appellant and Vivencio, together with
unsheathed his bolo and approached Geminiano from their parents, went ot the municipal treasurer of Taal
the left, while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-in- Batangas to file their application for marriage (Exhibits B
law) got an axe and approached Geminiano from the and C) and the consent of their parents to said marriage
right. The latter looked up to the sexagenarian Severo (Exhibits D and E). On March 5, 1955 the corresponding
Padernal, with both hands raised and pleaded: "Mamay marriage license, (Exh. F) was issued. After the issuance
(Grandpa), why will you do this to us. We will not fight of the marriage license, Vivencio and his parents
you." While Geminiano was still looking up to Severo together with the appellant and the parents of the latter
Padernal on his right, Ricohermoso walked to went to the parish priest of Taal, Batangas to arrange the
Geminiano's left, and, when about one meter from him, proclamation of the coming marriage of the tow. Later on
stabbed him on the neck with his bolo. Geminiano fell they went to the house of one Isidora Lascano to order
face downward on the ground. While in that helpless appellant's wedding gown which was brought to
position, he was hacked on the back with an axe by appellant's house on March 16, 1955. Inasmuch as there
Severo Padernal. was no one there, and the house was closed, the gown
was just left in the balcony.
At that same place and time, while Severo Padernal and
Ricohermoso were assaulting Geminiano de Leon, On the same date, Vivencio's father, in the presence of
another episode was taking place. Juan Padernal appellant's parents, gave P20 to the appellant's father as
(Ricohermoso's brother-in-law and the son of Severo) agreed upon. On the same date and on March 17 and 18
suddenly embraced Marianito de Leon from behind, with the parents of Vivencio cleaned the yard of appellant's
his right arm locked around Marianito's neck and his left house and did other household chores in the traditional
hand pressing Marianito's left forearm. They grappled barrio wedding practice. On March 18 they constructed a
and rolled downhill towards a camote patch. Marianito temporary shed where the wedding feast was to be held
passed out. When he regained consciousness, his rifle wherein they put up a temporary stove. They
was gone. He walked uphill, saw his mortally wounded slaughtered goats, pigs and chickens and they served
father Geminiano in his death throes, and embraced him. around 90 guests. On the morning of March 19, they
He carried Geminiano for a short distance. The fifty-one served around 70 guests because Vivencio's parents
year old Geminiano died at two o'clock on that same invited the appellant's friends and relatives. while said
day. party or celebration was going on, appellant could be
found nowhere. Vivencio and his parents still waited for
 Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying her until twelve midnight of March 19 but appellant never
circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury showed up thus causing them great shame and
(par. 4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining humiliation.
his act of preventing Marianito de Leon from
shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. Appellant, testifying on her own behalf, averred that
Vivencio was really courting her but she was not in love
Issue: with him. Her parents, however, tried to persuade her to
accept Vivencio's proposal of marriage. They even
Ruling: His reliance on that justifying circumstance is sought the help of her uncle, Agapito Mortel, to persuade
erroneous. her. Being obedient to her parents and her uncle
Agapito, who was insistent, she was finally prevailed
The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de upon to accept Vivencio's love, although she felt no love
Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, for the latter. Vivencio's parents went to ask for her hand
who were the aggressors, was designed to insure the in marriage, bringing chickens along with them.
killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his
assailants. Before they came, appellant already counseled them not
to bring those chickens but they insisted such that
Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought appellant had to tell them that they and Vivencio should
to disable Marianito. Padernal's malicious intention was not regret what should happen later. As the date of the
to forestall any interference in the felonious assault marriage was approaching, she felt a sense of torture
made by his father and brother-in-law on Geminiano. because she was not honestly in love with Vivencio. She
That situation is unarguably not the case envisaged in then decided to leave her home as a last recourse in
paragraph 4 of article 11. order to prevent the marriage believing that if anyone will
be humiliated by the failure of the marriage, it would be
2. People vs. Norma Hernandez she being a girl and not Vivencio. So on March 11, 1955,
she alone and without telling her parents what her plans
Facts: The complainant, Vivencio Lascano, a lad of 19 were, left for Mindoro and stayed with her cousin at
years of age started courting appellant Maria Norma Calapan where she remained until April of 1955 when
Hernandez sometime in August 1954. After months of she was fetched by her cousin to be brought to Taal
courtship appellant finally accepted Vivencio on January Batangas because she was under arrest on account of
6, 1955. On that date, they talked about their marriage this present case. Appellant denied having receiced a
appellant telling Vivencio to bring his parents to her wedding gown, stating that what Vivencio brought to her
home so that they could talk about their marriage. On was on ordinary dress ("bestida") and that was before
January 6, 1955 Vivencio told his parents about she accepted his love.
appellant's request. Subsequently, or on February 6,
1955 complainant's parents together with his twelve Issue:
aunts, bringing along about 30 chickens and three goats,
went to appellant's house to ask for her hand in Ruling: Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the
marriage. The parents of both parties agreed to the evil of going through a loveless marriage pursuant to
marriage of appellant to Vivencio. They set March 19, Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
1955 as the date of the wedding to be held at the Roman
Catholic church of Taal, Batangas. They likewise agreed Among the reasons adduced by the Solicitor General
are: the malice, one of the essential requisites of
67
 AB
slander, has not been proved; that in the act done by there and the prisoners were ahead because they know
appellant there was no malice because in chaing her the place. (66). When we arrived at the place, we did not
mind, assuming that she was in love with complainant see Labong and Tipace called our attention telling us
previous to the incident, she was merely exercising her that this is the place through which Epifanio Labong
right not to give her consent to the marriage after mature passed." The witness did not see the track of Epifanio
consideration, such consent being her prerogative as Labong but the prisoners, however, were the ones who
one of the contracting parties; that she can freely refuse indicated to him the place through which Epifanio
such consent during the actual marriage even if there Labong passed. "I followed them. Up to above the
was previous valid agreement to marry; that there were national highway. When we reached up the place
no strained relations existing between the complainant another prisoner called also our attention telling us that
and the appellant and her parents before the incident, on here is the place through which Labong passed and so
the contrary, there always existed good relations went up. When we reached above, they were already far
between them being neighbors so that it cannot be from here. So I told them to stop because they were
sustained that appellant was motivated by spite of ill-will already far from me. They did not heed my order to stop.
in deliberately frustrating the marriage, and there was, Then I fired up to the air. They scattered. I could only
therefore, no malice on her part; that since no marriage see two of them I also saw one of them running towards
shall be solemnized unless the consent of the parties is the mountain. So I fired at him." It was Eusebio Abria,
freely given, to penalize appellant for not continuing the and he was at about five meters from him. "He was
proposed marriage would make the State practically going up the mountain. After I fired at Eusebio Abria, I
instrumental in compelling an unwilling party to enter into saw him running. I just left him because I was looking for
a marriage, "an institution in the maintenance of which in the rest. I saw also Ibanez running. He was running
its purity the public is deeply interested ***"; that since towards me and then around me. I called his attention
the appellant unquestionably has the privilege to change and told him to stop from running or else lie down and
or reconsider her previous commitment to marry the give up your arm. He did not heed my order. I fired at
complainant it would be rank inconsistency to convict her him." (67-69). The witness saw Ibanez running before
for the crime of serious slander by deed, simply because him towards the south road. He was Tipace. One minute
she desisted in continuing with the marriage; that if a elapsed from the time the witness fired at Abria to the
party to an agreement to marry who backs out should be time he fired at Ibañez. The witness fired at them
held liable for the crime of slander by deed, then that because he sympathizes with other policemen from
would be an inherent way of compelling said party to go whom other prisoners escaped. (70). "Because if it so
into a marriage without his or her consent, and this happened that a prisoner escaped under my custody, I
would contravene the principle in law that what could not would be the one to be put in jail and if I cannot fire at
be done directly could not be done indirectly. him, I will be the one to be put in jail. "The truth is that
they ran away." At the time he fired at Tipace and Abria,
Fulfillment of duty (Art. 11[5]) they were running away. (71). "What was in my mind
was that if I could overtake them and not fire at them, I
1. People vs. Delima would meet the same situation as what other guards met
under whose custody prisoners escaped and some of
Facts: Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where them were discharged from their duty." Ibanez testified
he was serving sentence. against the accused because the latter fired at his father-
in-law. (72). One day, the accused maltreated Ibanez.
Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima, who He slapped him two times. He was the only prisoner he
was looking for him, found him in the house of Jorge slapped. (73). At the time they were looking for Labong,
Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the the prisoners were walking in line one meter from one to
shape of a lance, and demanded his surrender. The another. The accused was near them. (77). When he
fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The fired at Abria, the latter was about five meters from him
policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired and when he fired at Tipace, the latter was four meters
his revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal from him. At the time, Tipace was running side-wise to
ran away, without parting with his weapon. These peace the accused and he could see where the accused was.
officer went after him and fired again his revolver, this His face was facing the accused. (78). When he fired at
time hitting and killing him. Abria, he lost hope to recover Labong. "I was hopeless
already." (80) The picking up of gabi was not part of the
Issue: work of the prisoners. (81).

Ruling: That killing was done in the performance of a Issue:

duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his Ruling: Prosecuted appellant is entitled to the benefit of
sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a the mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying
weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to circumstance in paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Revised
resort to such an extreme means, which, although it Penal Code.
proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.
The evidence is conclusion to the effect that the escape
2. People vs. Lagata of prisoner Epifanio Labong was due to the negligence of
the appellant. The six prisoner were supposed to work in
Facts: Ignacio Lagata, 27, married, Catbalogan. — On the plaza of the provincial capitol and to return to jail
October 3, 1946, he accompanied the six prisoners from after said work but appellants allowed them instead to go
the provincial jail to the plaza of the provincial capitol. He to the nursery to gather gabi without any apparent
remained there until 10 o'clock in the morning, when he authority to do so.
told them to return to the provincial jail. The six prisoners
requested him to allow them to get some gabi in the Considering that the place was grassy and tall talahib
nursery. Lagata went with them to a spot around the was growing therein the height of which could conceal
mango tree. (63-64). The grass in the place was knee- persons in standing position appellant must have seen
high. Lagata was under a mango tree about five meters immediately that it was a choice place for any prisoner
from the prisoners. He was watching all of them. They that may want to escape. Such negligence of appellant is
were scattered back, Epifanio Labong took advantage punishable under article 224 of the Revised Penal code,
and escaped. "I did not discover that but when I called and the penalty imposed by trial court is in accordance
them to assemble I found out that one missing. I asked with law.
the rest of the prisoners as to where Epifanio Labong
was. I told the prisoners to go to that spot. We went The criminal responsibility of appellant regarding the
killing of Tipace can be exacted from him on the basis of
68
 AB
his own testimony. The way he fired at Tipace (whom he The three policemen, i.e., petitioner, Diaz and Cruz,
misnamed first as Ibañez) is described by appellant in each armed with a drawn handgun, searched the
the following words:. rooftop. There, they saw a man whom they thought was
the robbery suspect. At that instance, petitioner
He was running towards me and then around me. Mamangun, who was walking ahead of the group, fired
his handgun once, hitting the man. The man turned out
I called his attention and told him to stop from running or to be Gener Contreras (Contreras) who was not the
else lie downand give up your arm. He did not heed my robbery suspect.
advice.
Contreras died from the gunshot wound.
Inasmuch as he did not heed my advised so I fired at
him. Issue:

His direction while he was running not exactly towards Ruling: The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty
me but running in front of me to the left side. (69). under paragraph 5, Article II, of the Revised Penal Code
may be invoked only after the defense successfully
Explaining his reason for firing at Abria and Tipace, proves that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of
appellant gave the following reason: "Because I a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is
sympathize with the other policeman from whom the necessary consequence of the due performance or
prisoners escaped." (70). "If it so happened that a lawful exercise of such duty.
prisoner escaped under my custody, I would be the one
to be put in jail and if I cannot fire at him I will be the one I. The first requisite is present in this case.
to be put in jail." (71). (Emphasis ours) Petitioner, a police officer, was responding to a
robbery-holdup incident.
It is clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at
Tipace. Lagata could have fired at him in self defense or His presence at the situs of the crime was in
if absolutely necessary to avoid his escape. The record accordance with the performance of his duty.
does not show that Tipace was bent on committing any
act of aggression "he was running towards and then II. However, proof that the shooting and ultimate
around me". (Emphasis ours) How could anyone in his death of Contreras was a necessary
senses imagine that Tipace intended to escape by consequence of the due performance of his duty
running towards and around the very guard he was as a policeman is essential to exempt him from
supposed to escape from? criminal liability.

There is no question that the escape of Labong scared As we see it, petitioner’s posturing that he shot
appellant according to him because of the experience of Contreras because the latter tried to strike him with a
other guard who were dismissed from office or even steel pipe was a mere afterthought to exempt him from
prosecuted because of prisoners who had escaped criminal liability.
under their custody and that it was his duty to fire against
the prisoner if he wanted to be exempt from any We see no plausible basis to depart from the
responsibility. Even if appellant sincerely believe, Sandiganbayan’s findings that there was no reason for
although erroneously that in firing the shots be acted in the petitioner to shoot Contreras. The latter was
the performance of his official duty the circumstances of unarmed and had already uttered, "Hindi po ako, Hindi
the case show that there was no necessity for him to fire po ako" before the petitioner fatally shot him on the left
directly against the prisoners so as seriously wound one arm. Prosecution witness Ayson, who was then behind
of them and kill instantaneously another. While the petitioner when the latter shot Contreras, testified
custodians of prisoners should necessity would authorize that to the victim’s utterances, the petitioner even
them to fire against them. Their is the burden of proof as responded, "Anong hindi ako," and immediately shot
to such necessity. The summary liquidation of Prisoner Contreras.
under flimsy pretexts of attempts of escape, which has
been and is being practiced in dictatorial system of III. Moreover, petitioner’s pretense that Contreras
government has always been and is shocking to the struck him with a steel pipe is intriguing.
universal conscience of humanity.
As it is, petitioner did not report the same to Police
3. Mamangun vs. People Investigator Banez when he reported back to the police
station after the shooting incident. It was only when a
Facts: On July 31, 1992, at about 8:00 in the evening, in lead pipe was recovered from the scene and brought to
Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan a certain Liberty the police station that petitioner conveniently
Contreras was heard shouting, "Magnanakaw… remembered Contreras trying to hit him with a pipe.
Magnanakaw." Several residents responded and Such a vital information could not have escaped the
thereupon chased the suspect who entered the yard of petitioner’s mind. We are thus inclined to believe that the
Antonio Abacan and proceeded to the rooftop of alleged actuation of Contreras, which could have justified
Abacan’s house. petitioner’s shooting him, was nothing but a concocted
story to evade criminal liability. Indeed, knowing that he
At about 9:00 o’clock that same evening, the desk officer shot Contreras, the least that the petitioner should have
of the Meycauayan PNP Police Station, upon receiving a done was to bring with him to the police station the very
telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in progress in pipe with which Contreras tried to attack him. As borne
Brgy. Calvario, immediately contacted and dispatched to by the evidence, however, it was only after a police
the scene the crew of Patrol Car No. 601 composed of investigator referred to the scene that the lead pipe
Team Leader SPO1 Andres Legaspi, with PO2 Eugenio surfaced.
Aminas and herein petitioner PO2 Rufino S. Mamangun;
and Patrol Car No. 602 composed of Team Leader PO3 4. People vs. Dagani
Sandiego San Gabriel, with PO2 Carlito Cruz and PO2
Hobert Diaz. With the permission of Abacan, petitioner Facts:
Mamangun, PO2 Diaz and PO2 Cruz went to the rooftop
of the house whereat the suspect was allegedly taking Version of the Prosecution:
refuge.
At about 4:45 in the afternoon of September 11, 1989, a
group composed of Ernesto Javier (Javier), Lincoln

69
 AB
Miran (Miran), and two other individuals had been necessitated the act of killing. When an unlawful
drinking at the canteen located inside the compound of aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who
the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along C.M. resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to
Recto Avenue, Tondo, Manila. All of a sudden, wound the former aggressor. When Javier had been
appellants, who were security officers of the PNR and caught in the struggle for the possession of the gun with
covered by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, appellant Dagani, the grave peril envisaged by appellant
entered the canteen and approached the group. Santiano, which impelled him to fire at the victim, had
Appellant Dagani shoved Miran, causing the latter to fall then ceased to a reasonable extent, and undoubtedly,
from his chair. Dagani then held Javier while Santiano Santiano went beyond the call of self-preservation when
shot Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter. he proceeded to inflict the excessive and fatal injuries on
Javier, even when the alleged unlawful aggression had
Version of the Defense: already ceased.

Appellants testified that they were ordered by their desk The second element of self-defense demands that the
officer to investigate a commotion at the canteen. Upon means employed to neutralize the unlawful aggression
reaching the place, Santiano ordered his co-accused, are reasonable and necessary. It is settled that
Dagani, to enter, while the former waited outside. reasonable necessity of the means employed does not
imply material commensurability between the means of
Dagani approached Javier who had been striking a bottle attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
of beer on the table. Javier then pulled out a .22 caliber equivalence. The circumstances in their entirety which
revolver and attempted to fire at Dagani, but the gun surround the grappling of the firearm by Dagani and
failed to go off. Then suddenly, while outside the Javier, such as the nature and number of gunshot
canteen, Santiano heard gunfire and, from his vantage wounds sustained by the victim which amounted to two
point, he saw Javier and Dagani grappling for a .22 fatal wounds, that Dagani was able to restrain the hands
caliber gun which belonged to Javier. During the course of Javier and push
of the struggle, the gun went off, forcing Santiano to fire
a warning shot. He heard Javier’s gun fire again, so he them away from his body, that Dagani was larger than
decided to rush into the canteen. Santiano then shot Javier and had finished Special Weapons and Tactics
Javier from a distance of less than four meters. (SWAT) hand-to-

Issue: hand combat training, and Javier, as admitted by the

appellants, was inebriated at the time of the incident,25
Ruling: do not justify appellant Santiano’s act of fatally shooting
the victim twice.
I. Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of
self-defense, would presuppose an actual, Obedience to a lawful order of a superior (Art. 11[6])
sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger on the life and limb of a person – not 1. People vs. Beronilla
a mere threatening or intimidating attitude –
but most importantly, at the time the Facts: Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz,
defensive action was taken against the Abra, at the outbreak of war, and continued to serve as
aggressor. To invoke self-defense Mayor during the Japanese occupation, until March 10,
successfully, there must have been an 1943, when he moved to Bangued because of an
unlawful and unprovoked attack that attempt upon his life by unknown persons. On December
endangered the life of the accused, who was 18, 1944, appellant Manuel Beronilla was appointed
then forced to inflict severe wounds upon Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col. R. H. Arnold,
the assailant by employing reasonable regimental commander of the 15th Infantry, Philippine
means to resist the attack. Army, operating as a guerrilla unit in the province of
Abra. Simultaneously with his appointment as Military
In the instant case, the assertions that it was "quite Mayor, Beronilla received copy of a memorandum issued
probable" that Javier, during the course of the struggle by Lt. Col. Arnold to all Military Mayors in Northern
for the firearm, "could have easily killed" the appellants Luzon, authorizing them "to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen
are uncertain and speculative. There is aggression in to try persons accused of treason, espionage, or the
contemplation of the law only when the one attacked aiding and abetting (of ) the enemy" (Exhibit 9). He also
faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. The peril received from the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list
sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not of all puppet government officials of the province of Abra
just speculative. (which included Arsenio Borjal, puppet mayor of La Paz),
with a memorandum instructing all Military Mayors to
II. The defense was unable to prove that there investigate said persons and gather against them
was unlawful aggression on the part of complaints from people of the municipality for
Javier. They were unable to present collaboration with the enemy (Exhibit 12-a).
evidence that the victim actually fired his
gun. No spent shells from the .22 caliber Sometime in March, 1945, while the operations for the
pistol were found and no bullets were liberation of the province of Abra were in progress,
recovered from the scene of the incident. Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with his family in order
Javier also tested negative for gunpowder to escape the bombing of Bangued. Beronilla, pursuant
residue. Moreover, the trial court found to his instructions, placed Borjal under custody and
appellant Dagani’s account of the incident to asked the residents of La Paz to file complaints against
be incredible and self-serving. In sum, the him. In no time, charges of espionage, aiding the enemy,
defense presented a bare claim of self- and abuse of authority were filed against Borjal; a 12-
defense without any proof of the existence man jury was appointed by Beronilla.
of its requisites.
The trial lasted 19 days up to April 10, 1945; the jury
Even if it were established that Javier fired his gun as the found Borjal guilty on all accounts and imposed upon
appellants so insist, the imminence of the danger to their him instruction from his superiors. Mayor Beronilla
lives had already ceased the moment Dagani held down forwarded the records of the case to the Headquarters of
the victim and grappled for the gun with the latter. After the 15th Infantry for review. Said records were returned
the victim had been thrown off-balance, there was no by Lt. Col. Arnold to Beronilla on April 18, 1945 with the
longer any unlawful aggression that would have following instructions:

70
 AB
“This is a matter best handled by your government and Our conclusion is that Lt. Col. Arnold, for some reason
whatever disposition you make of the case is hereby that cannot now be ascertained, failed to transmit the
approved.” Volckmann message to Beronilla. And this being so, the
charge of criminal conspiracy to do away with Borjal
On the night of the same day, April 18, 1945, Beronilla must be rejected, because the accused had no need to
ordered the execution of Borjal. Jacinto Adriatico acted conspire against a man who was, to their knowledge,
as executioner and Antonio Palope as grave digger. duly sentenced to death.
Father Luding of the Roman Catholic Church was asked
to administer the last confession to the prisoner, while It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of
Father Filipino Velasco of the Aglipayan Church murder, and that the accused-appellants acted upon
performed the last rites over Borjal's remains. orders, of a superior officers that they, as military
Immediately after the execution, Beronilla reported the subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good
matter to Col. Arnold who in reply to Beronilla's report, faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any
sent him the following message: fault or negligence on their part, we can not say that
criminal intent has been established (U. S. vs. Catolico,
“ My request that you withhold action in this case was 18 Phil., 507; Peo. vs. Pacana, 47 Phil., 48; Sent. of the
only dictated because of a query from Higher Tribunal Supremo of Spain, 3 July 1886; 7 January
Headquarters regarding same. Actually, I believe there 1901; 24 March 1900; 21 Feb. 1921; 25 March 1929).
was no doubt as to the treasonable acts of the accused Actus non facit reum nisi mens si rea.
Arsenio Borjal and I know that your trial was absolutely
impartial and fair. Consequently, I Can only compliment The arrest and trial of Borjal were made upon express
you for your impartial independent way of handling the orders of the higher command; the appellants allowed
whole case.” Borjal to be defended by counsel, one of them (attorney
Jovito Barreras) chosen by Borjal's sister; the trial lasted
Two years thereafter, Manuel Beronilla as military nineteen (19) days; it was suspended when doubts
mayor, Policarpio Paculdo as Clerk of the jury, Felix arose about its legality, and it was not resumed until
Alverne and Juan Balmaceda as prosecutors, Jesus headquarters (then in Langangilang, Abra) authorized its
Labuguen, Delfin Labuguen, Filemon Labuguen, resumption and sent an observer (Esteban Cabanos, of
Servillano Afos, Andres Afos, Benjamin Adriatico, the S-5) to the proceedings, and whose suggestions on
Juanito Casel, Santiago Casel, Mariano Ajel, Felix procedure were followed; and when the verdict of guilty
Murphy, Benjamin Abella, and Pedro Turqueza as was rendered and death sentence imposed, the records
members of the jury, Jacinto Adriatico as executioner, were sent to Arnold's headquarters for review, and Borjal
Severo Afos as grave digger, and Father Filipino was not punished until the records were returned eight
Velasco as an alleged conspirator, were indicted in the days later with the statement of Arnold that "whatever
CFI of Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and disposition you make of the case is hereby approved"
confederating in the execution of Arsenio Borjal. Soon (Exhibit 8), which on its face was an assent to the verdict
thereafter, the late President Manuel A. Roxas issued and the sentence. The lower Court, after finding that the
Executive Proclamation No. 8, granting amnesty to all late Arsenio Borjal had really committed treasonable
persons who committed acts penalized under the acts, (causing soldiers and civilians to be tortured, and
Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance to hidden American officers to be captured by the
the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of Japanese) expressly declared that "the Court is
the enemy. Defendant Jesus Labuguen, then a master convinced that it was not for political or personal reason
sergeant in the Philippine Army, applied for and was that the accused decided to kill Arsenio Borjal"
granted amnesty by the Amnesty Commission, Armed (Decision, p. 9; Record, p. 727).
Forces of the Philippines (Records, pp. 618-20). The rest
of the defendant filed their application for amnesty with 2. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan
the Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, who denied
their application on the ground that the crime had been Facts: Then President Marcos instructed Tabuena over
inspired by purely personal motives, and remanded the the phone to pay directly to the president's office and in
case to the CFI of Abra for trial on the merits. cash what the MIAA owes the Philippine National
Construction Corporation (PNCC), to which Tabuena
 The state, however, predicates its case principally replied, "Yes, sir, I will do it." About a week later,
on the existence of the radiogram Exhibit H from Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then
Col. Volckmann, overall area commander, to Lt. Col. private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum
Arnold, specifically calling attention to the illegality of dated January 8, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as
Borjal's conviction and sentence, and which the MARCOS Memorandum) reiterating in black and white
prosecution claims was known to the accused such verbal instruction, to wit:
Beronilla. Said message is as follows:
“You are hereby directed to pay immediately the
"Message: Philippine National Construction Corporation, thru this
Office, the sum of FIFTY FIVE MILLION
VOLCKMANN TO ARNOLD CLN UNDERSTAND THAT (P55,000,000.00) PESOS in cash as partial payment of
MUNICIPALITIES OF ABRA HAVE ORGANIZED JURY MIAA's account with said Company mentioned in a
SYSTEM PD BELIEVE THAT THIS BODY IS ILLEGAL Memorandum of Minister Roberto Ongpin to this Office
AND CANNOT TRY PUNISHMENTS THEREOF PD dated January 7, 1985 and duly approved by this Office
SPECIFIC INSTANCE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR on February 4, 1985.
ATTENTION FRO PROPER AND IMMEDIATE ACTION
ON ONE ARSENIO BORJAL OF LA PAZ WHO HAS Your immediate compliance is appreciated.
BEEN TRIED CMA CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO
BE HANGED PD REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY YOU (Sgd.) FERDINAND MARCOS.”
ON THIS MATTER PD MSG BEGINS CLN"
In obedience to President Marcos' verbal instruction and
Issue: memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Dabao and
Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds
Ruling: We have carefully examined the evidence on by means of three (3) withdrawals.
this important issue, and find no satisfactory proof that
Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram Exhibit H or The first withdrawal was made on January 10, 1986 for
any copy thereof. P25 Million, following a letter of even date signed by
Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB extension

71
 AB
office at the MIAA — the depository branch of MIAA I. Tabuena had no other choice but to make the
funds, to issue a manager's check for said amount withdrawals, for that was what the MARCOS
payable to Tabuena. The check was encashed, Memorandum required him to do. He could not
however, at the PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the be faulted if he had to obey and strictly comply
cashier of the PNB Villamor branch counted the money with the presidential directive, and to argue
after which, Tabuena took delivery thereof. The P25 otherwise is something easier said than done.
Million in cash were then placed in peerless boxes and
duffle bags, loaded on a PNB armored car and delivered Marcos was undeniably Tabuena's superior — the
on the same day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez located at former being then the President of the Republic who
Aguado Street fronting Malacanang. Mrs. Gimenez did unquestionably exercised control over government
not issue any receipt for the money received agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC.15 In other
words, Marcos had a say in matters involving inter-
Similar circumstances surrounded the second government agency affairs and transactions, such as
withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another P25 for instance, directing payment of liability of one
Million, made on January 16, 1986. entity to another and the manner in which it should
be carried out. And as a recipient of such kind of a
The third and last withdrawal was made on January 31, directive coming from the highest official of the land
1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was Tabuena's co-signatory no less, good faith should be read on Tabuena's
to the letter- request for a manager's check for this compliance, without hesitation nor any question, with
amount. Peralta accompanied Tabuena to the PNB the MARCOS Memorandum. Tabuena therefore is
Villamor branch as Tabuena requested him to do the entitled to the justifying circumstance of "Any person
counting of the P5 Million. After the counting, the money who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
was placed in two (2) peerless boxes which were loaded superior for some lawful purpose."16 The
in the trunk of Tabuena's car. Peralta did not go with subordinate-superior relationship between Tabuena
Tabuena to deliver the money to Mrs. Gimenez' office at and Marcos is clear.
Aguado Street. It was only upon delivery of the P5
Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the II. And so too, is the lawfulness of the order
amounts she received from Tabuena. contained in the MARCOS Memorandum, as it
has for its purpose partial payment of the liability
The disbursement of the P55 Million was, as described of one government agency (MIAA) to another
by Tabuena and Peralta themselves, "out of the (PNCC).
ordinary" and "not based on the normal procedure". Not
only were there no vouchers prepared to support the However, the unlawfulness of the MARCOS
disbursement, the P55 Million was paid in cold cash. Memorandum was being argued, on the observation,
Also, no PNCC receipt for the P55 Million was for instance, that the Ongpin Memo referred to in the
presented. Defense witness Francis Monera, then Senior presidential directive reveals a liability of only about
Assistant Vice President and Corporate Comptroller of P34.5 Million.
PNCC, even affirmed in court that there were no
payments made to PNCC by MIAA for the months of Granting this to be true, it will not nevertheless affect
January to June of 1986. Tabuena's good faith so as to make him criminally
liable. What is more significant to consider is that the
The position of the prosecution was that there were no MARCOS Memorandum is patently legal (for on its
outstanding obligations in favor of PNCC at the time of face it directs payment of an outstanding liability)
the disbursement of the P55 Million. On the other hand, and that Tabuena acted under the honest belief that
the defense of Tabuena and Peralta, in short, was that the P55 million was a due and demandable debt and
they acted in good faith. Tabuena claimed that he was that it was just a portion of a bigger liability to PNCC.
merely complying with the MARCOS Memorandum
which ordered him to forward immediately to the Office III. There is no denying that the disbursement,
of the President P55 Million in cash as partial payment of which Tabuena admitted as "out of the ordinary",
MIAA's obligations to PNCC, and that he (Tabuena) was did not comply with certain auditing rules and
of the belief that MIAA indeed had liabilities to PNCC. regulations such as those pointed out by the
Peralta for his part shared the same belief and so he Sandiganbayan.
heeded the request of Tabuena, his superior, for him
(Peralta) to help in the release of P5 Million. But this deviation was inevitable under the
circumstances Tabuena was in. He did not have the
 Through their separate petitions for review, Luis A. luxury of time to observe all auditing procedures of
Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta (Tabuena and disbursement considering the fact that the MARCOS
Peralta, for short) appeal the Sandiganbayan Memorandum enjoined his "immediate compliance" with
decision dated October 12, 1990,2 as well as the the directive that he forward to the President's Office the
Resolution dated December 20. 19913 denying P55 Million in cash. Be that as it may, Tabuena surely
reconsideration, convicting them of malversation cannot escape responsibility for such omission. But
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. since he was acting in good faith, his liability should only
Tabuena and Peralta were found guilty beyond be administrative or civil in nature, and not criminal.
reasonable doubt Of having malversed the total
amount of P55 Million of the Manila International IV. The Supreme Court did not agree with
Airport Authority (MIAA) funds during their Sandiganbayan’s finding that Tabuena had
incumbency as General Manager and Acting already converted and misappropriated the P55
Finance Services Manager, respectively, of MIAA. Million when he delivered the same to Mrs.
Gimenez and not to the PNCC.
Issue:
It must be stressed that the MARCOS Memorandum
Ruling: In so far as Tabuena is concerned, with the due directed Tabuena "to pay immediately the Philippine
presentation in evidence of the MARCOS Memorandum National Construction Corporation, thru this office the
we are swayed to give credit to his claim of having sum of FIFTY FIVE MILLION. . .", and that was what
caused the disbursement of the P55 Million solely by Tabuena precisely did when he delivered the money to
reason of such memorandum. From this premise flows Mrs. Gimenez. Such delivery, no doubt, is in effect
the following reasons and/or considerations that would delivery to the Office of the President inasmuch as Mrs.
support his innocence of the crime of malversation. Gimenez was Marcos' secretary then. Furthermore,
Tabuena had reasonable ground to believe that the

72
 AB
President was entitled to receive the P55 Million since he its medium and maximum periods and a fine not
was certainly aware that Marcos, as Chief Executive, exceeding 1,000 pesos.
exercised supervision and control over government
agencies. And the good faith of Tabuena in having
delivered the money to the President's office (thru Mrs.
Gimenez), in strict compliance with the MARCOS The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to
Memorandum, was not at all affected even if it later any person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the
turned out that PNCC never received the money. purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the
occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it
V. Even assuming that the real and sole purpose be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling
behind the MARCOS Memorandum was to for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or
siphon-out public money for the personal benefit justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafés, taverns,
of those then in power, still, no criminal liability inns and other public houses, while the same are open.
can be imputed to Tabuena.
5. Sec. 21, RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No.
There is no showing that Tabuena had anything to do 1064
whatsoever with the execution of the MARCOS
Memorandum. Nor is there proof that he profited from Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
the felonious scheme. In short, no conspiracy was Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
established between Tabuena and the real embezzler/s Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
of the P5 Million. Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge
This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
obedience, but obedience in good faith of a duly of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
executed order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
order is rectitude far better than contumacious laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
disobedience. In the case at bench, the order emanated surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
from the Office of the President and bears the signature manner:
of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It
carries with it the presumption that it was regularly (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
issued. control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
Absolutory Causes same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
1. Art. 6[3] or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
2. Art. 20 from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to
ARTICLE 20. Accessories Who are Exempt from sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
Criminal Liability. — The penalties prescribed for thereof;
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
preceding article. PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;
3. Art. 247
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination
ARTICLE 247. Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted Under results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
Exceptional Circumstances. — Any legally married laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four
person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs,
kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. completion of testing within the time frame, a partial
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs
kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the
These rules shall be applicable, under the same completed forensic laboratory examination on the same
circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while
the daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the (4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall,
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
not be entitled to the benefits of this article. dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including
4. Art. 280 the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-
ARTICLE 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. — Any four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or
private person who shall enter the dwelling of another burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or
against the latter’s will, shall be punished by arresto the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society
If the offense be committed by means of violence or groups and any elected public official. The Board shall
intimidation, the penalty shall be prisión correccional in draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper

73
 AB
disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be Carungcong Sato[,] who predeceased our mother
borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzales, having died in Japan
lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be in 1991.
donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes:
Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly 4. In my conference with my nieces Karen Rose Sato
weighed and recorded is retained; and Wendy Mitsuko Sato, age[d] 27 and 24 respectively,
I was able to learn that prior to the death of my mother
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s], [s]pecifically on o[r]
the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s about November 24, 1992, their father William Sato,
which, together with the representative sample/s in the through fraudulent misrepresentations, was able to
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court secure the signature and thumbmark of my mother on a
having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the Special Power of Attorney whereby my niece Wendy
representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum Mitsuko Sato, who was then only twenty (20) years old,
quantity as determined by the Board; was made her attorney-in-fact, to sell and dispose four
(4) valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Said Special
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or Power of Attorney, copy of which is attached as ANNEX
counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the "A" of the Affidavit of Wendy Mitsuko Sato, was signed
above proceedings and his/her presence shall not and thumbmark[ed] by my mother because William Sato
constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender told her that the documents she was being made to sign
or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative involved her taxes. At that time, my mother was
after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her completely blind, having gone blind almost ten (10) years
counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual prior to November, 1992.
burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the
Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public 5. The aforesaid Special Power of Attorney was signed
attorney's office to represent the former; by my mother in the presence of Wendy, my other niece
Belinda Kiku Sato, our maid Mana Tingzon, and
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal Governor Josephine Ramirez who later became the
case wherein the representative sample/s was presented second wife of my sister’s widower William Sato.
as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the
Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, 6. Wendy Mitsuko Sato attests to the fact that my mother
shall request the court for leave to turn over the said signed the document in the belief that they were in
representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper connection with her taxes, not knowing, since she was
disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours blind, that the same was in fact a Special Power of
from receipt of the same; and Attorney to sell her Tagaytay properties.

(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours 7. On the basis of the aforesaid Special Power of
from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined Attorney, William Sato found buyers for the property and
herein which are presently in possession of law made my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign three (3)
enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be deeds of absolute sale in favor of (a) Anita Ng (Doc.
burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives 2194, Page No. 41, Book No. V, Series of 1992 of
of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the Notary Public Vicente B. Custodio), (b) Anita Ng (Doc.
accused/and or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the No. 2331, Page No. 68, Book No. V, Series of 1992 of
organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and Notary Public Vicente B. Custodio) and (c) Ruby Lee
burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous Tsai (Doc. No. II, Page No. 65, Book No. II, Series of
drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented 1993 of Notary Public Toribio D. Labid). x x x
by the DOH.
8. Per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, the
6. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vs. People considerations appearing on the deeds of absolute sale
were not the true and actual considerations received by
Facts: Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the her father William Sato from the buyers of her
duly appointed administratrix1 of petitioner intestate grandmother’s properties. She attests that Anita Ng
estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. actually paid ₱7,000,000.00 for the property covered by
de Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit2 for estafa TCT No. 3148 and ₱7,034,000.00 for the property
against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a Japanese covered by TCT No. 3149. All the aforesaid proceeds
national. Her complaint-affidavit read: were turned over to William Sato who undertook to make
the proper accounting thereof to my mother, Manolita
I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALE[S], Filipino, Carungcong Gonzale[s].
of legal age, single, and resident of Unit 1111, Prince
Gregory Condominium, 105 12th Avenue, Cubao, 9. Again, per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato,
Quezon City, after being duly sworn, depose and state Ruby Lee Tsai paid ₱8,000,000.00 for the property
that: covered by Tax Declaration No. GR-016-0735, and the
proceeds thereof were likewise turned over to William
1. I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Intestate Sato.
Estate of Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s], docketed
as Spec. Procs. No. [Q]-95-23621[,] RTC of Quezon 10. The considerations appearing on the deeds of sale
City, Branch 104, being one (1) of her surviving were falsified as Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato has actual
daughters. Copy of the Letters of Administration dated knowledge of the true amounts paid by the buyers, as
June 22, 1995 is hereto attached as Annex "A" to form stated in her Affidavit, since she was the signatory
an integral part hereof. thereto as the attorney-in-fact of Manolita Carungcong Y
Gonzale[s].
2. As such Administratrix, I am duty bound not only to
preserve the properties of the Intestate Estate of 11. Wendy was only 20 years old at the time and was
Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s], but also to recover not in any position to oppose or to refuse her father’s
such funds and/or properties as property belonging to orders.
the estate but are presently in the possession or control
of other parties. 12. After receiving the total considerations for the
properties sold under the power of attorney fraudulently
3. After my appointment as Administratrix, I was able to secured from my mother, which total ₱22,034,000.00,
confer with some of the children of my sister Zenaida William Sato failed to account for the same and never

74
 AB
delivered the proceeds to Manolita Carungcong Y Manolita signed and thumbmarked the document
Gonzale[s] until the latter died on June 8, 1994. presented by Sato in the belief that it pertained to her
taxes. Indeed, the document itself, the SPA, and
13. Demands have been made for William Sato to make everything that it contained were falsely attributed to
an accounting and to deliver the proceeds of the sales to Manolita when she was made to sign the SPA.
me as Administratrix of my mother’s estate, but he
refused and failed, and continues to refuse and to fail to Therefore, the allegations in the Information essentially
do so, to the damage and prejudice of the estate of the charged a crime that was not simple estafa. Sato
deceased Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s] and of the resorted to falsification of public documents (particularly,
heirs which include his six (6) children with my sister the special power of attorney and the deeds of sale) as a
Zenaida Carungcong Sato. necessary means to commit the estafa.

Issue: If the accused may not be held criminally liable Since the crime with which respondent was charged
for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under was not simple estafa but the complex crime of
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should he not be estafa through falsification of public documents,
absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause
of estafa through falsification of public documents? provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code in his favor.
Ruling:
The Information against Sato charges him with estafa.
 The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the However, the real nature of the offense is determined by
Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies the facts alleged in the Information, not by the
of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. designation of the offense.40 What controls is not the
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly title of the Information or the designation of the offense
limited to the felonies mentioned therein. but the actual facts recited in the Information.41 In other
words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the
A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that
that Sato is being charged not with simple estafa but determines the crime being charged in the
with the complex crime of estafa through Information.42 It is the exclusive province of the court to
falsification of public documents. In particular, the say what the crime is or what it is named.43 The
Information states that Sato, by means of deceit, determination by the prosecutor who signs the
intentionally defrauded Manolita committed as follows: Information of the crime committed is merely an opinion
which is not binding on the court.
(a) Sato presented a document to Manolita (who was
already blind at that time) and induced her to sign and  The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family
thumbmark the same; harmony and obviate scandal.47 Thus, the action
provided under the said provision simply concerns
(b) he made Manolita believe that the said document the private relations of the parties as family
was in connection with her taxes when it was in fact a members and is limited to the civil aspect between
special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing his minor the offender and the offended party.
daughter Wendy to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise
dispose of Manolita’s properties in Tagaytay City; When estafa is committed through falsification of a public
document, however, the matter acquires a very serious
(c) relying on Sato’s inducement and representation, public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights
Manolita signed and thumbmarked the SPA in favor of and liabilities of family members among themselves.
Wendy Mitsuko Sato, daughter of Sato; Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that
breaches public interest in the integrity of public
(d) using the document, he sold the properties to third documents as a means to violate the property rights of a
parties but he neither delivered the proceeds to Manolita family member, he is removed from the protective mantle
nor accounted for the same and of the absolutory cause under Article 332.

(d) despite repeated demands, he failed and refused to In considering whether the accused is liable for the
deliver the proceeds, to the damage and prejudice of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
estate of Manolita. documents, it would be wrong to consider the
component crimes separately from each other. While
The above averments in the Information show that the there may be two component crimes (estafa and
estafa was committed by attributing to Manolita (who falsification of documents), both felonies are animated by
participated in the execution of the document) and result from one and the same criminal intent for
statements other than those in fact made by her. which there is only one criminal liability.48 That is the
Manolita’s acts of signing the SPA and affixing her concept of a complex crime. In other words, while there
thumbmark to that document were the very expression of are two crimes, they are treated only as one, subject to a
her specific intention that something be done about her single criminal liability.
taxes. Her signature and thumbmark were the affirmation
of her statement on such intention as she only signed As opposed to a simple crime where only one juridical
and thumbmarked the SPA (a document which she could right or interest is violated (e.g., homicide which violates
not have read) because of Sato’s representation that the the right to life, theft which violates the right to
document pertained to her taxes. In signing and property),49 a complex crime constitutes a violation of
thumbmarking the document, Manolita showed that she diverse juridical rights or interests by means of diverse
believed and adopted the representations of Sato as to acts, each of which is a simple crime in itself.50 Since
what the document was all about, i.e., that it involved her only a single criminal intent underlies the diverse acts,
taxes. Her signature and thumbmark, therefore, served however, the component crimes are considered as
as her conformity to Sato’s proposal that she execute a elements of a single crime, the complex crime. This is
document to settle her taxes. the correct interpretation of a complex crime as treated
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, by inducing Manolita to sign the SPA, Sato made it
appear that Manolita granted his daughter Wendy a The allegations in the Information show that the
special power of attorney for the purpose of selling, falsification of public document was consummated when
assigning, transferring or otherwise disposing of Sato presented a ready-made SPA to Manolita who
Manolita’s Tagaytay properties when the fact was that signed the same as a statement of her intention in

75
 AB
connection with her taxes. While the falsification was Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in
consummated upon the execution of the SPA, the interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor
consummation of the estafa occurred only when Sato of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for
later utilized the SPA. He did so particularly when he had the accused.36 This is in consonance with the
the properties sold and thereafter pocketed the proceeds constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be
of the sale. Damage or prejudice to Manolita was caused presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is
not by the falsification of the SPA (as no damage was established beyond reasonable doubt.37
yet caused to the property rights of Manolita at the time
she was made to sign the document) but by the Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the
subsequent use of the said document. That is why the rule of lenity.38 The rule applies when the court is faced
falsification of the public document was used to facilitate with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one
and ensure (that is, as a necessary means for) the that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is
commission of the estafa. favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an
interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
The situation would have been different if Sato, using the
same inducement, had made Manolita sign a deed of Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case
sale of the properties either in his favor or in favor of is viewed through the lens of the basic purpose of Article
third parties. In that case, the damage would have been 332 of the Revised Penal Code to preserve family
caused by, and at exactly the same time as, the harmony by providing an absolutory cause. Since the
execution of the document, not prior thereto. Therefore, goal of Article 332(1) is to benefit the accused, the Court
the crime committed would only have been the simple should adopt an application or interpretation that is more
crime of estafa.63 On the other hand, absent any favorable to the accused. In this case, that interpretation
inducement (such as if Manolita herself had been the is the continuing affinity view.
one who asked that a document pertaining to her taxes
be prepared for her signature, but what was presented to Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal
her for her signature was an SPA), the crime would have Code, we hold that the relationship by affinity created
only been the simple crime of falsification. between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of
the deceased spouse survives the death of either party
 After due consideration and evaluation of the relative to the marriage which created the affinity. (The same
merits of the two views, we hold that the second principle applies to the justifying circumstance of defense
view is more consistent with the language and spirit of one’s relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised
of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of grave offense committed against one’s
The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the
that relationship by affinity between the surviving absolutory cause of relationship in favor of accessories
spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse under Article 20 also of the same Code.)
continues even after the death of the deceased
spouse, regardless of whether the marriage 7. People vs. Lua Chu
produced children or not. Under this view, the
relationship by affinity endures even after the Facts: About the middle of the month of November,
dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a 1929, the accused Uy Se Tieng wrote to his
result of the death of one of the parties to the said correspondent in Hongkong to send him a shipment of
marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have opium.
indicated an intent to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the
"tie of affinity" between these people and their relatives- About November 4, 1929, after the chief of the customs
by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon secret service of Cebu, Juan Samson, had returned from
the death of one of the married parties. a vacation in Europe, he called upon the then collector of
customs for the Port of Cebu, Joaquin Natividad, at his
First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in office, and the latter, after a short conversation, asked
cases of jury disqualification and incest. On the other him how much his trip had cost him. When the chief of
hand, the continuing affinity view has been applied in the secret service told him he had spent P2,500, the said
the interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step- collector of customs took from a drawer in his table, the
relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the amount of P300, in paper money, and handed it to him,
absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be saying: "This is for you, and a shipment will arrive
beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree shortly, and you will soon be able to recoup your
covered under the said provision, the continuing affinity travelling expenses." Juan Samson took the money, left,
view is more appropriate. and put it into the safe in his office to be kept until he
delivered it to the provincial treasurer of Cebu. A week
Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of later, Natividad called Samson and told him that the
"relatives by affinity in the same line" is couched in shipment he had referred to consisted of opium, that it
general language. The legislative intent to make no was not about to arrive, and that the owner would go to
distinction between the spouse of one’s living child Samson's house to see him. That very night Uy Se Tieng
and the surviving spouse of one’s deceased child (in went to Samson's house and told him he had come by
case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with respect order of Natividad to talk to him about the opium. The
to his or her parents-in-law) can be drawn from said accused informed Samson that the opium shipment
Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code without consisted of 3,000 tins, and that he had agreed to pay
doing violence to its language. Natividad P6,000 or a P2 a tin, and that the opium had
been in Hongkong since the beginning of October
Third, the Constitution declares that the protection and awaiting a ship that would go direct to Cebu.
strengthening of the family as a basic autonomous social
institution are policies of the State and that it is the duty At about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of November 22,
of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family.33 1929, one Nam Tai loaded on the steamship
Congress has also affirmed as a State and national Kolambugan, which the Naviera Filipina — a shipping
policy that courts shall preserve the solidarity of the company in Cebu had had built in Hongkong, 38 cases
family.34 In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to consigned to Uy Seheng and marked "U.L.H." About the
preserve family harmony and obviate scandal.35 The same date Natividad informed Samson that the opium
view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the had already been put on board the steamship
death of one of the parties to the marriage that created it Kolambugan, and it was agreed between them that
is more in accord with family solidarity and harmony. Samson would receive P2,000, Natividad P2,000, and

76
 AB
the remaining P2,000 would be distributed among Captain Buenconsejo. It was then agreed that Uy Se
certain employees in the customhouse. Tieng should take the papers with him at 10 o'clock next
morning. At the appointed hour, Uy Se Tieng and one Uy
Meanwhile, Uy Se Tieng continued his interviews with Ay arrived at Samson's house, and as Uy Se Tieng was
Samson. Towards the end of November, Natividad handing certain papers over to his companion, Uy Ay,
informed the latter that the Kolambugan had returned to Captain Buenconsejo, who had been hiding, appeared
Hongkong on account of certain engine trouble, and and arrested the two Chinamen, taking the
remained there until December 7th. In view of this, the aforementioned papers, which consisted of bills of lading
shipper several times attempted to unload the shipment, (Exhibits B and B-1), and in invoice written in Chinese
but he was told each time by the captain, who needed characters, and relating to the articles described in
the cargo for ballast, that the ship was about to sail, and Exhibit B. After having taken Uy Se Tieng and Uy Ay to
the 30 cases remained on board. the Constabulary headquarters, and notified the fiscal,
Captain Buenconsejo and Samson went to Lua Chu's
The Kolambugan arrived at Cebu on the morning of home to search it and arrest him. In the pocket of a coat
December 14, 1929. While he was examining the hanging on a wall, which Lua Chu said belonged to him,
manifests, Samson detailed one of his men to watch the they found five letters written in Chinese characters
ship. After conferring with Natividad, the latter instructed relating to the opium (Exhibits G to K). Captain
him to do everything possible to have the cargo Buenconsejo and Samson also took Lua Chu to the
unloaded, and to require Uy Se Tieng to pay over the Constabulary headquarters, and then went to the
P6,000. On the morning of November 16, 1929, customhouse to examine the cases marked "U.L.H." In
Natividad told Samson that Uy Se Tieng already had the the cases marked Nos. 11 to 18, they found 3,252 opium
papers ready to withdraw the cases marked "U.L.H." tins hidden away in a quantity to dry fish. The value of
from the customhouse. Samson then told Natividad it the opium confiscated amounted to P50,000.
would be better for Uy Se Tieng to go to his house to
have a talk with him. Uy Se Tieng went to Samson's The defendants' principal defense is that they were
house that night and was told that he must pay over the induced by Juan Samson to import the opium in question
P6,000 before taking the opium out of the customhouse.
Uy Se Tieng showed Samson the bill of lading and on Issue:
leaving said: "I will tell the owner, and we see whether
we can take the money to you tomorrow." The following Ruling: It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way
day Samson informed Colonel Francisco of the for the introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was
Constabulary, of all that had taken place, and the said after the accused had already planned its importation
colonel instructed the provincial commander, Captain and ordered said drug, leaving only its introduction into
Buenconsejo, to discuss the capture of the opium the country through the Cebu customhouse to be
owners with Samson. Buenconsejo and Samson agreed managed, and he did not do so to help them carry their
to meet at the latter's house that same night. That plan to a successful issue, but rather to assure the
afternoon Samson went to the office of the provincial seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the
fiscal, reported the case to the fiscal, and asked for a smugglers.
stenographer to take down the conversation he would
have with Uy Se Tieng that night in the presence of No defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilitates
Captain Buenconsejo. As the fiscal did not have a good for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or
stenographer available, Samson got one Jumapao, of that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation"
the law firm of Rodriguez & Zacarias, on the of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that
recommendation of the court stenographer. On the detectives feigning complicity in the act were present
evening of December 17, 1929, as agreed, Captain and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is
Buenconsejo, Lieutenant Fernando; and the this true in that class of cases where the offense is one
stenographer went to Samson's house and concealed of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation
themselves behind a curtain made of strips of wood merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere
which hung from the window overlooking the entrance to deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if
the house on the ground floor. the offense was committed by him free from the
influence or the instigation of the detective. The fact that
As soon as the accused Uy Se Tieng arrived, Samson an agent of an owner acts as supposed confederate of a
asked him if he had brought the money. He replied that thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for
he had not, saying that the owner of the opium, who was larceny, provided the original design was formed
Lua Chu, was afraid of him. Samson then hold him to tell independently of such agent; and where a person
Lua Chu not to be afraid, and that he might come to approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the
Samson's house. After pointing out to Uy Se Tieng a owner or the public authorities, and, being authorized by
back door entrance into the garden, he asked him where them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan,
the opium was, and Uy Se Tieng answered that it was in the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally
the cases numbered 11 to 18, and that there were 3,252 held that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal
tins. Uy Se Tieng returned at about 10 o'clock that night sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a "spotter,"
accompanied by his codefendant Lua Chu, who said he detective, or hired informer; but there are cases holding
was not the sole owner of the opium, but that a man from the contrary.
Manila, named Tan, and another in Amoy were also
owners. Samson then asked Lua Chu when he was As we have seen, Juan Samson neither induced nor
going to get the opium, and the latter answered that Uy instigated the herein defendants-appellants to import the
Se Tieng would take charge of that. On being asked if he opium in question, as the latter contend, but pretended
had brought the P6,000, Lua Chu answered, no, but to have an understanding with the collector of customs,
promised to deliver it when the opium was in Uy Se Joaquin Natividad — who had promised them that he
Tieng's warehouse. After this conversation, which was would remove all the difficulties in the way of their
taken down in shorthand, Samson took the accused Lua enterprise so far as the customhouse was concerned —
Chu aside and asked him: "I say, old fellow, why didn't not to gain the P2,000 intended for him out of the
you tell me about this before bringing the opium here?" transaction, but in order the better to assure the seizure
Lua Chu answered: "Impossible, sir; you were not here, of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious
you were in Spain on vacation." On being asked by importers. There is certainly nothing immoral in this or
Samson how he had come to bring in the opium, Lua against the public good which should prevent the
Chu answered: "I was in a cockpit one Sunday when the Government from prosecuting and punishing the culprits,
collector called me aside and said there was good for this is not a case where an innocent person is
business, because opium brought a good price, and he induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but
needed money." All this conversation was overheard by it simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
77
 AB
Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that the mere Ruling: In People v. Galicia, the appellate court declared
fact that the chief of the customs secret service that "there is a wide difference between entrapment and
pretended to agree a plan for smuggling illegally instigation." The instigator practically induces the would-
imported opium through the customhouse, in order the be accused into the commission of the offense and
better to assure the seizure of said opium and the arrest himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, ways and
of its importers, is no bar to the prosecution and means are resorted to by the peace officer for the
conviction of the latter. purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal plan.67 In People v. Tan
8. People vs. Doria Tiong,68 the Court of Appeals further declared that
"entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction
Facts: In November 1995, members of the North of the lawbreaker.
Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in People v.
from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was Galicia was affirmed by this Court in People v. Tiu Ua.70
engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. Entrapment, we further held, is not contrary to public
The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in policy. It is instigation that is deemed contrary to public
a buy-bust operation. As arranged by one of the CI's, a policy and illegal.71
meeting between the Narcom agents and "Jun" was
scheduled on December 5, 1995 at E. Jacinto Street in We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust
Mandaluyong City. operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This
On December 5, 1995, at 6:00 in the morning, the CI must start from the initial contact between the poseur-
went to the PNP Headquarters at EDSA, Kamuning, buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise
Quezon City to prepare for the buy-bust operation. or payment of the consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of
At 7:20 of the same morning, "Jun" appeared and the CI the sale.92 The manner by which the initial contact was
introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to
(1) kilo of marijuana. P03 Manlangit handed "Jun" the purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust"
marked bills worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed P03 money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to
Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw the informant alone or the police officer, must be the
Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-
from his associate.5 An hour later, "Jun" appeared at the abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an
agreed place where P03 Manlangit, the CI and the rest offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At
of the team were waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag an the same time, however, examining the conduct of the
object wrapped in plastic and gave it to P03 Manlangit. police should not disable courts into ignoring the
P03 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is
rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency,
not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun" recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also
revealed that he left the money at the house of his be considered. Courts should look at all factors to
associate named "Neneth.6 "Jun" led the police team to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an
"Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal. offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the
validity of the defense of inducement.
The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and
a woman inside. "Jun" identified the woman as his In the case at bar, the evidence shows that it was the
associate.7 SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the confidential informant who initially contacted accused-
P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" appellant Doria. At the pre-arranged meeting, the
house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a informant was accompanied by PO3 Manlangit who
carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the posed as the buyer of marijuana. P03 Manlangit handed
box's flaps was open and inside the box was something the marked money to accused-appellant Doria as
wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents advance payment for one (1) kilo of marijuana. Accused-
appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by appellant Doria was apprehended when he later returned
"Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered and handed the brick of marijuana to P03 Manlangit.
"Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He peeked
inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks PO3 Manlangit testified in a frank, spontaneous,
of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. straightforward and categorical manner and his
credibility was not crumpled on cross-examination by
Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua defense counsel. Moreover, P03 Manlangit's testimony
recovered the marked bills from "Neneth."8 The was corroborated on its material points by SPO1 Badua,
policemen arrested "Neneth." They took "Neneth" and his back-up security. The non-presentation of the
"Jun," together with the box, its contents and the marked confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution.
bills and turned them over to the investigator at Informants are usually not presented in court because of
headquarters. It was only then that the police learned the need to hide their identity and preserve their
that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is invaluable service to the police.
Violeta Gaddao y Catama. The one (1) brick of dried
marijuana leaves recovered from "Jun" plus the ten (10) We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-
bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are
at the PNP Crime Laboratory.9 The bricks, eleven (11) in allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of
all, were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to
various weights totalling 7,641.08 grams. wit:

Issue: The assigned errors involve two principal issues: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace
(1) the validity of the buy-bust operation in the officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
apprehension of accused-appellant Doria; and (2) the a person:
validity of the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant
Gaddao, the search of her person and house, and the (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
therefrom. commit an offense;

78
 AB
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that basis of the alleged identification made by her co-
the person to be arrested has committed it; and accused. PO3 Manlangit, however, declared in his direct
examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who in response to his (PO3 Manlangit's) query as to where
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he the marked money was.118 Appellant Doria did not point
is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug
his case is pending, or has escaped while being business, but as the person with whom he left the
transferred from one confinement to another. marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead
to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with
xxx xxx xxx 103 her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may
have left the money in her house,119 with or without her
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for
arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is accused-appellant Doria 's word, the Narcom agents had
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged
offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of in drug pushing. If there is no showing that the person
committing an offense. When an accused is who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right,
apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the
operation, the police are not only authorized but duty- perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally
bound to arrest him even without a warrant. 104 objectionable.120

The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant
of her person and residence, and the seizure of the box Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her
of marijuana and marked bills are different matters. person and home and the subsequent seizure of the
marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a an incident to her arrest. This brings us to the question of
judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such whether the trial court correctly found that the box of
warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any marijuana was in plain view, making its warrantless
proceeding. 105 The rule is, however, not absolute. seizure valid.
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and
the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following
the following instances: 106 (1) search incident to a requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in
lawful arrest;107 (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
108 (3) search in violation of customs laws; 109 (4) intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
seizure of evidence in plain view; 110 (5) when the particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the
searches and seizures. 111 officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.122
The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial
arrested without a warrant of arrest and the search and intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
seizure of the box of marijuana and the marked bills particularly view the area.123 In the course of such
were likewise made without a search warrant. It is lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of
claimed, however, that the warrants were not necessary evidence incriminating the accused.124 The object must
because the arrest was made in "hot pursuit" and the be open to eye and
search was an incident to her lawful arrest.
hand125 and its discovery inadvertent.126
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao
must fall under any of the three (3) instances It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself
enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the
on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted. The direct object is inside a closed container. Where the object
testimony of PO3 Manlangit, the arresting officer, seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is
however shows otherwise. not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without
a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be
committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial seized.127 In other words, if the package is such that an
court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao experienced observer could infer from its appearance
to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
pursuit."114 In fact, she was going about her daily deemed in plain view.128 It must be immediately
chores when the policemen pounced on her. apparent to the police that the items that they observe
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified subject to seizure.129
under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal
knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under P03 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant
Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable Gaddao's house because they were led there by
cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable appellant Doria. The Narcom agents testified that they
grounds of suspicion."115 The grounds of suspicion are had no information on appellant Gaddao until appellant
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the Doria name her and led them to her.131 Standing by the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be door of appellant Gaddao's house, P03 Manlangit had a
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is view of the interior of said house. Two and a half meters
based an actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances away was the dining table and underneath it was a
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable carton box. The box was partially open and revealed
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.116 A something wrapped in plastic.
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he
the peace officers making the arrest.117 was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana
because he himself checked and marked the said
contents.132 On cross-examination, however, he
admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be
79
 AB
marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets.
the "buy-bust marijuana." A close scrutiny of the records Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the
reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and representative from the media and barangay officials,
transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking.
viewer. Each of the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the
box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and Issue:
placed inside plastic bags — white, pink or blue in
color.133 PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on cross- Ruling: The judgment of conviction is reversed and set
examination that the contents of the box could be items aside, and Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable
other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the doubt.
box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao
about its contents.134 It was not immediately apparent On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to
to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it
marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view and its essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in
seizure without the requisite search warrant was in the IRR, thus:
violation of the law and the Constitution.135 It was fruit
of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded The apprehending team having initial custody and
and never considered by the trial court. control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
9. People vs. Miranda and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of
Facts: Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 the seized items and photograph the same in the
Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain representative or counsel, with an elected public official
"Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited and a representative of the National Prosecution Service
drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
Edwin Layese, to gather for a buy-bust operation. During That the physical inventory and photograph shall be
the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IO1 Carin conducted at the place where the search warrant is
were assigned as the team leader, the arresting served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur- office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
buyer, respectively. The team prepared a ₱500.00 bill as practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided,
buy-bust money (with its serial number entered in the finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
PDEA blotter), the Coordination Form for the nearest justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
police station, and other related documents. evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional render void and invalid such seizures and custody over
office about 15 minutes before 10:00 p.m. and arrived in said items.
the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IOI Carin and
the CI alighted from the vehicle near the corner leading Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the
to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other necessary witnesses must be proven.
team members disembarked a few meters after and
positioned themselves in the area to observe. IOI Carin The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they
and the CI turned at the comer and stopped in front of a did not secure the presence of a representative from
house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the arresting
nong Romy." Gorres came out and invited them to enter. officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they
Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching the only tried to coordinate with the barangay officials
television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution
buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a
bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he DOJ representative.
came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who
then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also
shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to
him with the buy-bust money. coordinate with and secure presence of the required
witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust
After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a team felt "unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in
missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-arranged Lim's house, considering that the team is composed of at
signal. The latter, with the rest of the team members, least ten (10) members, and the two accused were the
immediately rushed to Lim's house. When they arrived, only persons in the house.
IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They
then entered the house because the gate was opened. It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to
IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A.
informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be excused
their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
ordered to put their hands on their heads and to squat on the confiscated items are properly preserved applies
the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. not just on arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate
Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully made in air
both. When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was or sea port, detention cell or national penitentiary,
found, but something was bulging in his pocket. IO1 checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international
Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented
the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular search, stop and frisk (Terry search), search incident to
plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that a lawful arrest, or application of plain view doctrine
it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for where time is of the essence and the arrest and/or
Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized. seizure is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in
advance.
IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic
box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a  WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February
disposable lighter. 101 Carin turned over to him the 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the
80
 AB
G.R. CR HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the The remainder of petitioners' recollection of events
September 24, 2013 Decision of RTC, Branch 25, strains credulity. They claim that Jesus launched an
Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2010- assault despite the presence of at least seven (7)
1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant antagonists: petitioners, Mercedes, and the four (4) other
Romy Lim y Miranda guilty of violating Sections 11 accused. They further assert that Jesus persisted on his
and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No. assault despite being outnumbered, and also despite
9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, their and their co-accused's bodily efforts to restrain
accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda is Jesus. His persistence was supposedly so likely to harm
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is them that, to neutralize him, they had no other recourse
ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from but to hit him on the head with stones for at least three
detention, unless he is being lawfully held for (3) times, and to hit him on the back with a bamboo rod,
another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be aside from dealing him with less severe blows.
issued immediately.
As the RTC noted, however:
Additional Cases
The Court takes judicial notice of (the) big difference in
1. Velasquez v. People the physical built of the private complainant and accused
Victor Velasquez, Sonny Boy Velasquez, Felix
Facts: On May 24, 2003, at about 10:00 p.m., the Caballeda and Jojo del Mundo, private complainant is
spouses Jesus and Ana Del Mundo (Del Mundo shorter in height and of smaller built than all the
Spouses) left their home to sleep in their nipa hut, which accused.
was about 100 meters away.11 Arriving at the nipa hut,
the Del Mundo Spouses saw Ampong and Nora Castillo Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial
(Nora) in the midst of having sex.12 Aghast at what he aggressor, the beating dealt to him by petitioners and
perceived to be a defilement of his property, Jesus Del their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what
Mundo (Jesus) shouted invectives at Ampong and Nora, would have sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a
who both scampered away.13 Jesus decided to pursue reasonably necessary means to repel his supposed
Ampong and Nora, while Ana Del Mundo (Ana) left to aggression. Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the
fetch their son, who was then elsewhere.14 Jesus went second requisite of self-defense and of defense of a
to the house of Ampong's aunt, but neither Ampong nor relative.
Nora was there.15 He began making his way back home
when he was blocked by Ampong and his fellow 3. People v. Regalario
accused.16
Facts: On the night of February 22, 1997, a public dance
Without provocation, petitioner Nicolas hit the left side of and singing contest was held in their barangay.
Jesus' forehead with a stone. Petitioner Victor also hit Naturally, being barangay officials, the accused, (except
Jesus' left eyebrow with a stone.17 Accused Felix did Noel who is not an official and whose wife has just given
the same, hitting Jesus above his left ear.18 Accused birth) were at the place of the celebration, discharging
Sonny struck Jesus with a bamboo, hitting him at the their peace-keeping duties. They were posted at different
back, below his right shoulder.19 Ampong punched places in that vicinity.
Jesus on his left cheek. The accused then left Jesus on
the ground, bloodied. Jesus crawled and hid behind At first, a fire broke out in the toilet of the Day Care
blades of grass, fearing that the accused might return. Center. It was attended to by the persons assigned in
He then got up and staggered his way back to their that area. A while later, there was another commotion in
house.20 the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario. When
he approached the group where the disturbance was
Jesus testified on his own ordeal. In support of his taking place and tried to investigate, Rolando Sevilla
version of the events, the prosecution also presented the suddenly emerged from the group and without any ado,
testimony of Maria Teresita Viado (Maria Teresita). fired a shot at him. He was hit at the left shoulder.
Maria Teresita was initially approached by Jesus' wife, Instinctively, and in order to disable Sevilla from firing
Ana, when Jesus failed to immediately return home.21 more shots, which might prove fatal, he struck his
She and Ana embarked on a search for Jesus but were assailant with his nightstick and hit him at the back of his
separated.22 At the sound of a man being beaten, she head. This is the blow which Nancy Sara and Zaldy
hid behind some bamboos.23 From that vantage point, Siglos said were delivered by Sotero and Bienvenido.
she saw the accused mauling Jesus.24 The prosecution This blow caused Sevilla to reel backward and lean on
noted that about four (4) or five (5) meters away was a the bamboo fence. To prevent Sevilla from regaining his
lamp post, which illuminated the scene.25 balance, Ramon pressed his counter-attack by
continuing to harass him with blows of his nightstick. As
At the Del Mundo Spouses' residence, Maria Teresita Ramon pressed on forward, Sevilla retreated backward.
recounted to them what she had witnessed (Jesus had Ramon kept him busy parrying the blows which hit his
managed to return home by then).26 Ana and Maria arms and front part of the body, as they were face to
Teresita then brought Jesus to Barangay Captain Pili ta face with each other. But even in the course of such
Villanueva, who assisted them in bringing Jesus to the harassment, Sevilla was able to fire a second shot which
hospital.27 missed Ramon.

After undergoing an x-ray examination, Jesus was found When they reached the end of the road pavement,
to have sustained a crack in his skull. Sevilla lost his footing on edge of the pavement and fell
down. At that juncture, Sotero arrived and shouted to
 Petitioners' defense centers on their claim that they Ramon to stop beating Rolando. But Ramon told him
acted in defense of themselves, and also in defense that Rolando still had the gun. So, Sotero plunged at
of Mercedes, Nicolas' wife and Victor's mother. Rolando and they wrestled on the ground for the
Thus, they invoke the first and second justifying possession of the gun. As they struggled, the gun went
circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal off but no one was hurt. When Rolando raised his arms
Code. to move the gun away from Sotero, Ramon knocked the
gun off his hand and it fell near the place where Jose
Issue: Poblete was standing. Poblete just arrived at the scene
along with Marciano Regalario who was already told that
Ruling: We find petitioners' claims of self-defense and his brother Ramon was shot by Sevilla. Poblete picked
defense of their relative, Mercedes, to be sorely wanting. up the gun. He was instructed by Marciano to keep it
until it is turned over to the authorities.
81
 AB
The wounded Ramon Regalario was brought to town for lacerated wounds on the head, as well as multiple
treatment and later to the provincial hospital. Marciano abrasions and contusions on different parts of the
and Sotero proceeded to the police station to report the victim’s body, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report. Dr.
shooting of Ramon. Mario Cerillo who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the victim revealed that the victim’s
Bienvenido Regalario, the barangay tanod, arrived at the lacerated wounds could have been caused by a blunt
scene after the fact. He was instructed by Marciano, the instrument like a hard stick, a stone or an iron bar; his
barangay captain to effect the arrest of Rolando Sevilla stab wounds by a sharp-edged instrument or knife; his
for the crime of shooting Ramon. According to contusions and hematoma by a fist blow or through
Bienvenido, they were taught in their training seminar to contact with a blunt instrument. He also declared that the
just use a rope in lieu of handcuffs because they could sharp object which caused the victim’s stab wounds
not be supplied with it. So, he tied the hands and feet of could have been a knife 2 centimeters (cms.) wide and 6
Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape. cms. long because they were clean-cut wounds. Indeed,
even if it were true that the victim fired a gun at Ramon,
On the early morning of February 23, a team of the number, nature and severity of the injuries suffered
policemen went to Natasan and found the dead body of by the victim indicated that the force used against him by
Rolando Sevilla. Jose Poblete also turned over to the Ramon and his co-accused was not only to disarm the
police, Rolando Sevilla’s gun. Meanwhile, Noel victim or prevent him from doing harm to others.
Regalario, after learning of the incident, scoured the
place where the third shot was fired during the struggle 4. People v. Dulin
between Sotero and Rolando. He found a .38 caliber
slug which was also turned over to the police. Facts: Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan
Norte, Tuguegarao at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening
Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in not finding of August 22, 1990 when a young man came running
that the deceased was killed in self-defense and/or from the house of Vicente Danao towards the house of
defense of relative. Batulan, shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had
been stabbed. Tamayao rushed towards Danao’s house,
Ruling: When self-defense is invoked by an accused which was about 30 meters from his own house, and
charged with murder or homicide, he necessarily owns there he saw Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already
up to the killing but may escape criminal liability by prostrate face down. Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if
proving that it was justified and that he incurred no kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was
criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements holding Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and
of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the thrusting the knife at the latter with his right hand. Seeing
part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means this, Tamayao ran towards Batulan’s house to inform
employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who was his aunt,
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person about the incident. He went home afterwards.
defending himself, must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. However, without unlawful Tamayao mentioned of the long-standing grudge
aggression, there can be no self-defense, either between Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them fighting
complete or incomplete. in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two
occasions: He will soon have his day and I will kill him.4
In People v. Cajurao,18 we held:
Cabalza, a barangay tanod, was in his house around
…The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful 10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 when he
aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right heard the commotion in Danao’s house which was facing
to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Retaliation is his house. It was Carolina, Danao’s daughter, screaming
not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the for help. He thus sought out a fellow barangay tanod. On
unlawful aggression and the danger or risk to life and his return to the scene, he found Batulanat the door of
limb, the necessity for the person invoking self-defense Danao’s house, with Dulin wielding a sharp pointed
to attack his adversary ceases.1avvphi1 If he persists in instrument, about 6-7 inches long. Fearing for his safety,
attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the he rushed to the Barangay Hall to seek the assistance of
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense Edwin Cabalza and Nanding Buenaflor to bring Batulan
does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor to the Provincial Hospital in Carig, Tuguegarao.5
who is retreating from the fray.
Estelita recalled that Tamayao went to her house around
Accused-appellant Ramon contends that the victim 10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 to inform
Rolando Sevilla committed an act of unlawful aggression her that Dulin had stabbed her husband in Danao’s
with no provocation on his [Ramon’s] part. Ramon house. She rushed to Danao’s house but fainted on the
testified that he was trying to investigate a commotion way. Upon regaining consciousness, she learned that
when, without warning, Rolando emerged from the her husband had been rushed to the hospital. On her
group, thrust and fired his gun at him, hitting him in the way to the hospital, she met Barangay Captain Loreto
left shoulder. To disable Rolando from firing more shots, Meman, who told her: Finally, Freddie Dulin killed your
Ramon struck the victim’s head at the back with his husband as he vowed to do. At the hospital, she was told
nightstick, causing the victim to reel backward and lean that her husband had sustained two wounds in the back
on the bamboo fence. He continued hitting Rolando to and several stab wounds in the front, and was being
prevent the latter from regaining his balance and, as he attended to at the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU)
pressed on farther, the victim retreated backward. before he expired.

By Ramon’s own account, after he was shot, he hit the Estelita said that Barangay Captain Meman went to her
victim at the back of the latter’s head and he continued husband’s wake and repeated what he had said to her
hitting the victim who retreated backward. From that about Dulin. But when she later on sought out Barangay
moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of Captain Meman to ask him to confirm what he had told
the victim ceased to exist and the continuation of the her about Dulin’s vowing to kill her husband, Barangay
offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an Captain Meman’s response was: I’m sorry I cannot go
aggressor. There was clearly no longer any danger, but and declare what I have stated because I am afraid of
still Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation. FREDDIE and he will kill all those persons who will
testify in their favor.6
Ramon’s claim of self-defense is further belied by the
presence of two (2) stab wounds on the neck, four (4) Estelita mentioned of the heated discussion between her
husband and his nephew, Seong Bancud, in front of
82
 AB
Danao’s house in April 1990. On that occasion, Dulin unlawful aggression against him effectively ceased.
wielded a knife with which he tried to stab her husband. When
Dulin was pacified only when she went to the aid of her
husband, but she then heard Dulin saying: You will soon FRANCISCO and appellant again grappled for
have your day, I will kill you.7 possession of the weapon, appellant now became the
armed protagonist, and FRANCISCO’s act of trying to
Batulan was attended to at the Cagayan Valley Regional wrest the weapon cannot be considered as unlawful
Hospital on August 22, 1990 by Dr. Macaraniag, who aggression. At that moment, appellant no longer faced
said that the victim was in a state of shock from his 12 any imminent or immediate danger to his life and limb
stab wounds. Dr. Macaraniag was part of the three from FRANCISCO.
teams that conducted the surgery on Batulan. He issued
the Medico-Legal Certificate8 attesting that Batulan died xxxx
on August 24, 1990 at 12:15 a.m.; and that Batulan had
sustained several injuries. From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that
FRANCISCO could no longer be considered as unlawful
Issue: aggressor. Appellant had nothing to repel. Therefore,
appellant’s theory that he was merely defending himself
I. Whether or not the CA erred in failing to appreciate when he killed FRANCISCO is unavailing. A fortiori,
the presence of the justifying circumstance of self- there would be no basis for the second requisite of self-
defense despite clear and convincing evidence defense.22
showing the elements of self-defense.
II. Whether or not the CA erred in not considering We uphold the finding and holding of the CA. Batulan,
incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating albeit the initial aggressor against Dulin, ceased to be
circumstance (Art. 69) in the event that the the aggressor as soon as Dulin had dispossessed him of
appreciation of a complete self-defense is the weapon. Even if Batulan still went after Dulin despite
unavailing. the latter going inside the house of Danao, where they
again grappled for control of the weapon, the grappling
Ruling: for the weapon did not amount to aggression from
Batulan for it was still Dulin who held control of the
I. Unlawful aggression as the condition sine qua weapon at that point. Whatever Dulin did thereafter – like
non for upholding self-defense. stabbing Batulan with the weapon – constituted
retaliation against Batulan. In this regard, retaliation was
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the
primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self- aggression that the victim started already ceased when
defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no the accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the
justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the aggression was still continuing when the accused injured
presence of unlawful aggression under the the aggressor.23 As such, there was no unlawful
circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim aggression on the part of Batulan to justify his fatal
put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person stabbing by Dulin.
defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must II. Incomplete self-defense was not proved.
establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or Pursuant to Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or defense reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than
assault must be unlawful. that prescribed by law. For this purpose, the accused
must prove the existence of the majority of the elements
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or for self-defense, but unlawful aggression, being an
material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful indispensable element, must be present. Either or both
aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression of the other requisites may be absent, namely:
means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
an offensive act that positively determines the intent of or repel it, or the lack of sufficient provocation on the part
the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful of the person defending himself.
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the
point of happening; it must not consist in a mere Dulin posits that the totality of circumstances indicated
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but that his acts constituted incomplete self-defense, and
must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a must be appreciatedas a privileged mitigating
revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife circumstance.
and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful
aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of Dulin’s position is untenable. Like in complete self-
the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip defense, Dulin should prove the elements of incomplete
where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an self-defense by first credibly establishing that the victim
angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot. had committed unlawful aggression against him. With
Batulan’s aggression having already ceased from the
Dulin argues that the CA should have appreciated the moment that Dulin divested Batulan of the weapon, there
justifying circumstance of self-defense in his favor would not be any incomplete self-defense. Moreover, as
because all its elements had been present in the borne out by his stabbing of Batulan several times, Dulin
commission of the crime. did not act in order to defend himself or to repel any
attack, but instead to inflict injury on Batulan.
In rejecting Dulin’s argument, the CA observed that
although Batulan had initiated the attack against Dulin 5. People v. Fontanilla
the unlawful aggression from Batulan effectively ceased
once Dulin had wrested the weapon from the latter. The Facts: The State presented Marquez and Abunan as its
CA thus found and held in its assailed decision: witnesses. They claimed that they were only several
meters away from Olais when Fontanilla struck him; that
Appellant testified that after the initial stabbing attack on they shouted at Fontanilla, who fled because of them;
him, he was able to take possession of the weapon and and that they were able to see and to identify Fontanilla
ran towards the second level of the house of Vicente as the attacker of their father-in-law because the area
Danao, away from FRANCISCO. At that point, the was then well-lighted.5

83
 AB
Dr. Felicidad Leda, the physician who conducted the By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted
autopsy on the cadaver of Olais, attested that her post- inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the death of Olais.
mortem examination showed that Olais had suffered a It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for
fracture on the left temporal area of the skull, causing his murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal
death. She opined that a hard object or a severe force injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to
had hit the skull of the victim more than once, prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the
considering that the skull had been already fragmented justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal
and the fractures on the skull had been radiating.6 liability. Having thus admitted being the author of the
death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden
SPO1 Abraham Valdez, who investigated the slaying of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction
and apprehended Fontanilla, declared that he had gone of the court, and he would be held criminally liable
looking for Fontanilla in his house along with other unless he established self-defense by sufficient and
policemen; that Fontanilla’s father had denied that he satisfactory proof. He should discharge the burden by
was around; that their search of the house had led to the relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the
arrest of Fontanilla inside; and that they had then Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, would not be
brought him to the police station.7 Valdez further disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.
declared that Fontanilla asserted that he would only Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond
speak in court.8 reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end
of the proceedings.
At the trial, Fontanilla claimed self-defense. He said that
on the night of the incident, he had been standing on the Indeed, had Olais really attacked Fontanilla, the latter
road near his house when Olais, wielding a nightstick would have sustained some injury from the aggression. It
and appearing to be drunk, had boxed him in the remains, however, that no injury of any kind or gravity
stomach; that although he had then talked to Olais was found on the person of Fontanilla when he
nicely, the latter had continued hitting him with his fists, presented himself to the hospital; hence, the attending
striking him with straight blows; that Olais, a karate physician of the hospital did not issue any medical
expert, had also kicked him with both his legs; that he certificate to him. Nor was any medication applied to
had thus been forced to defend himself by picking up a him. In contrast, the physician who examined the
stone with which he had hit the right side of the victim’s cadaver of Olais testified that Olais had been hit on the
head, causing the latter to fall face down to the ground; head more than once. The plea of self-defense was thus
and that he had then left the scene for his house upon belied, for the weapons used by Fontanilla and the
seeing that Olais was no longer moving.9 location and number of wounds he inflicted on Olais
revealed his intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent
Fontanilla’s daughter Marilou corroborated her father’s or repel an attack from Olais. We consider to be
version. significant that the gravity of the wounds manifested the
determined effort of the accused to kill his victim, not just
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in ignoring to defend himself.
accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense.
6. Josue v. People
Ruling: A review of the records reveals that, one, Olais
did not commit unlawful aggression against Fontanilla, Facts: On May 1, 2004, at around 11:15 in the evening,
and, two, Fontanilla’s act of hitting the victim’s head with Macario, a barangay tanod, was buying medicine from a
a stone, causing the mortal injury, was not proportional store near the petitioner’s residence in Barrio Obrero,
to, and constituted an unreasonable response to the Tondo, Manila when he saw the petitioner going towards
victim’s fistic attack and kicks. him, while shouting to ask him why he had painted the
petitioner’s vehicle. Macario denied the petitioner’s
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the accusation, but petitioner still pointed and shot his gun at
primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self- Macario. The gunshots fired by the petitioner hit
defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no Macario’s elbow and fingers. As the unarmed Macario
justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the tried to flee from his assailant, the petitioner still fired his
presence of unlawful aggression under the gun at him, causing him to sustain a gunshot wound at
circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim his back. Macario was then rushed to the Chinese
put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person General Hospital for medical treatment.
defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must Version of the defense:
establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or For his defense, the petitioner declared to have merely
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must acted in self-defense. He claimed that on the evening of
be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or May 1, 2004, he, together with his son Rafael, was
assault must be unlawful. watching a television program when they heard a sound
indicating that the hood of his jeepney was being
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or opened. He then went to the place where his jeepney
material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful was parked, armed with a .45 caliber pistol tucked to his
aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression waist. There he saw Macario, together with Eduardo
means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, Matias and Richard Akong, in the act of removing the
an offensive act that positively determines the intent of locks of his vehicle’s battery. When the petitioner sought
the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful the attention of Macario’s group, Macario pointed his .38
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the caliber gun at the petitioner and pulled its trigger, but the
point of happening; it must not consist in a mere gun jammed and failed to fire. The petitioner then got his
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but gun and used it to fire at Macario, who was hit in the
must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a upper arm. Macario again tried to use his gun, but it still
revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife jammed then fell on the ground. As Macario reached
and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful down for the gun, the petitioner fired at him once more,
aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of hitting him at the back. When Macario still tried to fire his
the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip gun, the petitioner fired at him for the third time, hitting
where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an his hand and causing Macario to drop his gun. The
angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot. petitioner got Macario’s gun and kept it in his residence.

Issue:

84
 AB
Ruling: The Court finds, and so holds, that both the trial Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond
and appellate courts have correctly ruled on the reasonable doubt of homicide based on the evidence on
petitioner’s culpability for the crime of frustrated record.
homicide, which has the following for its elements:
Ruling: We agree with the ruling of the CA that the
(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested petitioner failed to prove self-defense, whether complete
by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; or incomplete.

(2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did To prove self-defense, the petitioner was burdened to
not die because of timely medical assistance; and prove the essential elements thereof, namely: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) lack of
(3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under sufficient provocation on the part of the petitioner; (3)
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present. employment by him of reasonable means to prevent or
repel the aggression. Unlawful aggression is a condition
In the present case, particularly significant to this sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-
element of "unlawful aggression" is the trial court’s defense, whether complete or incomplete.23 Unlawful
finding that Macario was unarmed at the time of the aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and
shooting, while the petitioner then carried with him a .45 unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
caliber pistol. According to prosecution witness merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
Villanueva, it was even the petitioner who confronted the
victim, who was then only buying medicine from a sari- The evidence on record revealed that there is no
sari store. Granting that the victim tried to steal the unlawful aggression on the part of Ricky. While it was
petitioner’s car battery, such did not equate to a danger established that Ricky was stabbed at the doorstep of
in his life or personal safety. At one point during the fight, appellant’s house which would give a semblance of
Macario even tried to run away from his assailant, yet verity to appellant’s version of the incident, such view,
the petitioner continued to chase the victim and, using however, is belied by the fact that Ricky arrived at
his .45 caliber pistol, fired at him and caused the mortal appellant’s house unarmed and had only one purpose in
wound on his chest. Contrary to the petitioner’s defense, mind, that is, to ask appellant why he threw stones at his
there then appeared to be no "real danger to his life or (Ricky’s) house. With no weapon to attack appellant, or
personal safety," for no unlawful aggression, which defend himself, no sign of hostility may be deduced from
would have otherwise justified him in inflicting the Ricky’s arrival at appellant’s doorstep. Ricky was not
gunshot wounds for his defense, emanated from threatening to attack nor in any manner did he manifest
Macario’s end.* any aggressive act that may have imperiled appellant’s
well-being. Ricky’s want of any weapon when he arrived
The weapon used and the number of gunshots fired by at appellant’s doorstep is supported by the fact that only
the petitioner, in relation to the nature and location of the one weapon was presented in court, and that weapon
victim’s wounds, further negate the claim of self-defense. was the bolo belonging to appellant which he used in
For a claim of self-defense to prosper, the means stabbing Ricky.
employed by the person claiming the defense must be
commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack Appellant was not justified in stabbing Ricky. There was
sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary no imminent threat to appellant’s life necessitating his
to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.16 assault on Ricky. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine
Considering the petitioner’s use of a deadly weapon qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
when his victim was unarmed, and his clear intention to For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must
cause a fatal wound by still firing his gun at the victim be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent
who had attempted to flee after already sustaining two danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating
gunshot wounds, it is evident that the petitioner did not attitude. In the absence of such element, appellant’s
act merely in self-defense, but was an aggressor who claim of self-defense must fail.
actually intended to kill his victim.
Additional Notes:
7. Toledo v. People
The petitioner testified that his bolo hit the victim
Facts: At around 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 1995, he accidentally. He asserted in the RTC and in the CA that
was on his way home at Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon. he is exempt from criminal liability for the death of the
He saw his nephew, Ricky Guarte, and the latter’s victim under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised
friends, Michael Fosana, Rex Cortez, and Lani Famero, Penal Code which reads:
about five meters away from his house, having a drinking
spree. He ordered them not to make loud noises, and 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
they obliged. He then went to his house, locked the door due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
with a nail, and went to sleep. However, he was or intention of causing it.
awakened at around 9:30 p.m. by loud noises coming
from Ricky and his three companions. He peeped In his brief in the CA, the petitioner argued that:
through the window grills of his house and admonished
them not to make any loud noises. Ricky, who was then In the case at bar, with all due respect, contrary to the
already inebriated, was incensed; he pulled out a findings of the lower court, it is our humble submission
balisong, pushed the door, and threatened to stab the that the death of Ricky Guarte was merely a sad and
petitioner. The petitioner pushed their sala set against unwanted result of an accident without fault or intention
the door to block the entry of Ricky, but the latter of causing it on the part of accused-appellant. We
continued to push the door open with his hands and submit, there were clear and indubitable factual
body. The petitioner ran to the upper portion of their indicators overlooked by the lower court, bolstering the
house and got his bolo.5 He returned to the door and theory of the defense on accidental death.
pushed it with all his might using his left hand. He then
pointed his bolo, which was in his right hand, towards However, the petitioner changed gear, so to speak, and
Ricky. The bolo accidentally hit Ricky on the stomach, now alleges that he acted in self-defense when he
and the latter lost his balance and fell to the floor. The stabbed the victim. As such, he contends, he is not
petitioner, thereafter, surrendered to the barangay criminally liable under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the
captain at 11:00 a.m. on September 17, 1995. Revised Penal Code which reads:

85
 AB
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not is no criminal liability because of the complete absence
incur any criminal liability: of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act. An accident is a fortuitous
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, circumstance, event or happening; an event happening
provided that the following circumstances concur: wholly or partly through human agency, an event which
under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by
First. Unlawful aggression; the person to whom it happens.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed 8. Dela Cruz v. People

to prevent or repel it:
Facts: Petitioner claimed that on January 1, 2005, at
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the around 2:30 in the afternoon, more or less, petitioner,
person defending himself. together with his children, went to Sykes Asia, the
workplace of his wife, Darlene Dela Cruz (Darlene),
The petitioner avers that he was able to prove the located at the 25th Floor of Robinson’s Summit Building
essential elements of complete self-defense, thus: in Makati City, to fetch the latter so that their family could
spend time and celebrate together the New Year’s Day.
A close scrutiny of the records of the case would show Before entering the Robinson’s Summit Building,
that the petitioner acted in self-defense. petitioner underwent the regular security check-
up/procedures. He was frisked by the guards-on-duty
The essential requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful manning the main entrance of said building and no
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable firearm was found in his possession. He registered his
scrutiny of the means employed to prevent or repel it; name at the security logbook and surrendered a valid
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the I.D.
person defending himself (People vs. Silvano, 350
SCRA 650) Upon reaching the 25th Floor of the same building, a
security guard manning the entrance once again frisked
However, the petitioner also claims that his bolo petitioner and, likewise, found no gun in his possession;
accidentally hit the stomach of the victim. hence, he was allowed to enter the premises of Sykes
Asia. The security guard also pointed to him the direction
It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular towards his wife’s table.
theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory
in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his However, as Darlene was then not on her table,
theory on appeal. The case will be reviewed and decided petitioner approached a certain man and asked the latter
on that theory and not approached and resolved from a as to the possible whereabouts of Darlene. The person
different point of view. To permit a party to change his whom petitioner had talked towas the deceased-victim,
theory on appeal will be unfair to the adverse party. Jeffrey. After casually introducing himself as the
husband of Darlene, Jeffrey curtly told him, "Bakit mo
The petitioner is proscribed from changing in this Court, hinahanap si Darlene?"to which he answered,
his theory of defense which he adopted in the trial court "Nagpapasundo kasi sa akin."The response given by
and foisted in the CA – by claiming that he stabbed and Jeffrey shocked and appalled petitioner: "Ayaw na nga
killed the victim in complete self-defense. The petitioner ng asawa mo sayo sinusundo mo pa!"
relied on Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code in the trial and appellate courts, but adopted in this Shocked by the words and reaction of Jeffrey, petitioner
Court two divergent theories – (1) that he killed the victim tried to inquire from Jeffrey who he was. But Jeffrey
to defend himself against his unlawful aggression; suddenly cursed petitioner. Then, Jeffrey suddenly
hence, is justified under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the picked up something in his chair which happened to be a
Revised Penal Code; (2) that his bolo accidentally hit the gun and pointed the same at petitioner’s face followed by
victim and is, thus, exempt from criminal liability under a clicking sound. The gun, however, did not fire.
Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
Seeing imminent danger to his life, petitioner grappled
It is an aberration for the petitioner to invoke the two with Jeffrey for the possession of the gun. While
defenses at the same time because the said defenses grappling, the gun clicked for two (2) to three (3) more
are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense as times. Again, the gun did not fire.
accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law.
Petitioner was able to wrest away the gun from Jeffrey
Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the and tried to run away to avoid any further confrontation
Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a deliberate and with the latter. However, Jeffrey immediately blocked
positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an petitioner’s path and shouted, "Guard! Guard!"
unlawful aggression of another with the use of Immediately then, Jeffrey took hold of a big fire
reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. extinguisher, aimed and was about to smash the same
He is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts. on petitioner’s head.
The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme
and irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of Acting instinctively, petitioner dodged the attack while
the law. From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the still holding the gun. While in the act of parrying, the gun
right of self-defense. The right begins when necessity accidentally fired due to the reasonable force and
does, and ends where it ends. Although the accused, in contact that his dodging hand had made with the fire
fact, injures or kills the victim, however, his act is in extinguisher and the single bullet discharged hit the
accordance with law so much so that the accused is forehead of Jeffrey, which caused the latter to fall on the
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free floor and die.
from both criminal and civil liabilities. On the other hand,
the basis of exempting circumstances under Article 12 of Petitioner left the gun and went out of the premises of
the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of Sykes Asia and proceeded towards the elevator. On his
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or the absence way to the elevator, he heard Darlene shout, "Sherwin
of negligence on the part of the accused. The basis of anong nangyari?", but he was not able to answer.
the exemption in Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code is lack of negligence and intent. The After said incident, Darlene abandoned petitioner and
accused does not commit either an intentional or brought with her their two (2) young children. Petitioner
culpable felony. The accused commits a crime but there later learned that Darlene and Jeffrey had an illicit

86
 AB
relationship when he received a copy of the blog of The rule is that the means employed by the person
Darlene, dated January 30, 2005, sent by his friend. invoking self-defense contemplates a rational
equivalence between the means of attack and the
Issue: Whether the elements of self-defense exist to defense (People vs. Obordo, 382 SCRA 98).
exculpate petitioner from the criminal liability for
homicide. It was the accused who was in a vantage position as he
was armed with a gun, as against the victim who was
Ruling: Measured against these criteria, we find that armed, so to speak, with a fire extinguisher, which is not
petitioner's defense is sorely wanting. Hence, his petition a deadly weapon. Under the circumstances, accused’s
must be denied. alleged fear was unfounded.

I. The evidence on record does not support The observation of the RTC dispels any doubt that the
petitioner's contention that unlawful gun may have been shot accidentally to the detriment of
aggression was employed by the deceased- Jeffrey. The fire was neither a disaster nor a misfortune
victim, Jeffrey, against him. of sorts. While petitioner may not have intended to kill
Jeffrey at the onset, at the time he clicked the trigger
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of thrice consecutively, his intent to hurt (or even kill)
self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected Jeffrey was too plain to be disregarded. We have held in
or imminent danger — not merely threatening and the past that the nature and number of wounds are
intimidating action.15 There is aggression, only when the constantly and unremittingly considered important indicia
one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his which disprove a plea of self-defense. Thus, petitioner’s
life.16 The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent contention that an accident simultaneously occurred
and actual, not merely speculative.17 In the case at bar, while he was in the act of self-defense is simply absurd
other than petitioner’s testimony, the defense did not and preposterous at best.
adduce evidence to show that Jeffrey condescendingly
responded to petitioner’s questions or initiated the 9. Guevarra v. People
confrontation before the shooting incident; that Jeffrey
pulled a gun from his chair and tried to shoot petitioner Facts: At around 10:00 to 11 :00 p.m., on November 8,
but failed — an assault which may have caused 2000, he, his brother David and Philip went to a birthday
petitioner to fear for his life. party and passed in front of the petitioners' compound.
He was walking twenty (20) meters ahead of his
Even assuming arguendo that the gun originated from companions when, suddenly, Philip ran up to him saying
Jeffrey and an altercation transpired, and therefore, that David was being stabbed by Joey with a bolo. While
danger may have in fact existed, the imminence of that approaching the scene of the stabbing, which was three
danger had already ceased the moment petitioner (3) meters away from where his brother David was,
disarmed Jeffrey by wresting the gun from the latter. Erwin was met by Rodolfo who then hacked him, hitting
After petitioner had successfully seized it, there was no his arm and back. Thereafter, Rodolfo and Joey dragged
longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would Erwin inside the petitioners' compound and kept on
have necessitated the need to kill Jeffrey. hacking him. He was hacked and stabbed thirteen (13)
times. He became weak and ultimately fell to the ground.
In this case, accused and the victim grappled for
possession of the gun. Accused admitted that he Erwin denied that he and David threw stones at the
wrested the gun from the victim. From that point in time petitioners' house and damaged Rodolfo's tricycle. They
until the victim shouted "guard, guard", then took the fire did not likewise destroy the petitioners' gate, which was
extinguisher, there was no unlawful aggression coming only damaged when his brother David clung on to it
from the victim. Accused had the opportunity to run while he was being pulled by Rodolfo and Erwin into
away. Therefore, even assuming that the aggression their compound. While they were being hacked and
with use of the gun initially came from the victim, the fact stabbed by Rodolfo and Erwin, stones actually rained on
remains that it ceased when the gun was wrested away them and people outside the petitioners' gate were
by the accused from the victim. It is settled that when saying, "Do not kill the brothers. Allow them to come
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has out."
any right to kill or wound the former aggressor,
otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed After the incident, Erwin and David, both unconscious,
(People Vs. Tagana, 424 SCRA 620). A person making were brought to the hospital. David died in the hospital
a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor while being treated for his wounds.
when the unlawful aggression has ceased (People vs.
Pateo, 430 SCRA 609). Issue:

Accused alleged that the victim was about to smash the Ruling: As the RTC and the CA did, we find the absence
fire extinguisher on his (accused’s) head but he parried it of the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the
with his hand holding the gun. This is doubtful as nothing victims.
in the records is or would be corroborative of it.
By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect,
II. Even assuming that the unlawful admitted to the commission of the acts for which they
aggression emanated from the deceased were charged, albeit under circumstances that, if proven,
victim, Jeffrey, the means employed by would have exculpated them. With this admission, the
petitioner was not reasonably burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to show that the
commensurate to the nature and extent of killing and frustrated killing of David and Erwin,
the alleged attack, which he sought to avert. respectively, were attended by the following
As held by the Court in People v. Obordo, circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
the means employed by the person invoking victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed
self-defense contemplates a rational to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of
equivalence between the means of attack sufficient provocation on the part of the persons resorting
and the defense. to self-defense.

The victim was holding the fire extinguisher while the Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most
second was holding the gun. The gun and the discharge important of all is the element of unlawful aggression.
thereof were unnecessary and disproportionate to repel Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at
the alleged aggression with the use of fire extinguisher. least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a

87
 AB
person. The element of unlawful aggression must be justifying circumstance of self-defense. The fact that the
proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully victim suffered many stab wounds in the body that
pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether caused his demise, and the nature and location of the
complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed wound also belies and negates the claim of self-defense.
unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to It demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life
self-defense. of the victim.

. As the prosecution fully established, Erwin and David Under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the following
were just passing by the petitioners' compound on the elements must be present in order that a plea of self-
night of November 8, 2000 when David was suddenly defense may be validly considered in absolving a person
attacked by Joey while Erwin was attacked by Rodolfo. from criminal liability:
The attack actually took place outside, not inside, the
petitioners' compound, as evidenced by the way the First. Unlawful Aggression;
petitioners' gate was destroyed. The manner by which
the wooden gate post was broken coincided with Erwin's Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
testimony that his brother David, who was then clinging to prevent or repel it;
onto the gate, was dragged into the petitioners'
compound. These circumstances, coupled with the Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
nature and number of wounds sustained by the victims, person defending himself.
clearly show that the petitioners did not act in self-
defense in killing David and wounding Erwin. The
petitioners were, in fact, the real aggressors. EXEMPTING
10. People v. Sevillano CIRCUMSTANCES
Facts: Prosecution witnesses Jose Palavorin and 1. People vs. Taneo
Carmelita Cardona, 67 and 46 years old, respectively,
testified that at around 3:00 p.m. of 11 March 2007, they, Facts: Potenciano Tadeo live with his wife in his parent's
together with Victim Pablo Maddauin, were seated on a house of the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Ormoc,
long bench having their usual chit-chat at the vacant lot Leyte. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being
situated at 4th Street Guadal Canal, St., Sta. Mesa, celebrated in the said barrio and visitors were
Manila. Witness Jose was the watchman of this property. entertained in the house. Among them were Fred Tanner
While conversing, they saw appellant coming towards and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano
their direction. Appellant could not walk straight and Taneo, went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly
appeared to be drunk. Without warning, appellant pulled got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his
out a knife from his waist and stabbed the victim on the wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in the
chest. Jose and Carmelita tried to restrain the appellant abdomen. Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred Tanner and
from attacking the victim, but Jose experienced leg Luis Malinao and tried to attack his father after which he
cramps and lost his hold on appellant. Appellant turned wounded himself. Potenciano's wife who was then seven
again on the victim and continued to stab him several months pregnant, died five days later as a result of her
times more. The victim was heard asking appellant, wound, and also the foetus which was asphyxiated in the
"Bakit?". Carmelita shouted for help. The victim’s wife mother's womb.
came to the scene and embraced appellant as she
wrestled for the knife. Thereafter, [the] victim was It appears from the evidence that the day before the
brought to the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay commission of the crime the defendant had a quarrel
Memorial Medical center; but unfortunately, he died that over a glass of "tuba" with Enrique Collantes and
same day. Valentin Abadilla, who invited him to come down to fight,
and when he was about to go down, he was stopped by
Appellant, for his part, denied the accusations against his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of
him. He interposed self-defense to absolve himself from the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad and
criminal liability. He averred that on that fateful weak, and early in the afternoon he had a severe
afternoon, he went to the vacant lot where the victim and stomachache which made it necessary for him to go to
his friends usually hang-out to feed his chicken. While bed. It was then when he fell asleep. The defendant
thereat, the victim, whom he described to have states that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that
bloodshot eyes, walk towards him and stepped on his Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while
injured foot. While he was on his knees because of the Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which he got up; and
pain, he saw the victim draw a knife. The latter thereafter as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to
stabbed at him while uttering: "Ikaw pa, putang ina mo," come down, he armed himself with a bolo and left the
but missed his target. As he and the victim grappled for room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to
the knife, the latter was accidentally stabbed. When he him that she was wounded. Then he fancied seeing his
saw blood oozing out of the victim, he became wife really wounded and in desperation wounded
apprehensive of the victim’s relative to such extent that himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him,
he fled the scene and hid to as far as Bulacan where he he attacked everybody that came his way.
was eventually apprehended.

Issue:
Issue:
Ruling: Appellant’s version that it was the victim who
was armed with a knife and threatened to stab him was Ruling: Our conclusion is that the defendant acted while
found by the lower court to be untenable. in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were
not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.
We agree with the lower court’s conclusion. Assuming
arguendo that there was indeed unlawful aggression on we are taking into consideration the fact that the
the part of the victim, the imminence of that danger had apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act
already ceased the moment appellant was able to does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that
wrestle the knife from him. Thus, there was no longer simply they are not known to us, for we cannot probe
any unlawful aggression to speak of that would justify the into depths of one's conscience where they may be
need for him to kill the victim or the former aggressor. found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation.
This Court has ruled that if an accused still persists in We are also conscious of the fact that an extreme moral
attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the perversion may lead a man commit a crime without a
88
 AB
real motive but just for the sake of committing it. But in order to acquit the accused on the ground of
under the special circumstances of the case, in which insanity.
the victim was the defendant's own wife whom he dearly
loved, and taking into consideration the fact that the II. The second view is that an affirmative verdict of
defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house insanity is to be governed by a preponderance of
and under whose protection he lived, besides attacking evidence, and in this view, insanity is not to be
Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself invited established beyond a reasonable doubt.
as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find
not only a lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily III. The third view is that the prosecution must prove
commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
committing said acts.

Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of This liberal view is premised on the proposition that while
the same opinion. The doctor stated that considering the it is true that the presumption of sanity exists at the
circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in outset, the prosecution affirms every essential
a dream, under the influence of an hallucination and not ingredients of the crime charged, and hence affirms
in his right mind. sanity as one essential ingredients, and that a fortiori
where the accused introduces evidence to prove insanity
In view of all these considerations, and reserving the it becomes the duty of the State to prove the sanity of
judgment appealed from, the courts finds that the the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
defendant is not criminally liable for the offense with
which he is charged, and it is ordered that he be In the Philippines, we have approximated the first and
confined in the Government insane asylum, whence he stricter view (People vs. Bacos [1922], 44 Phil., 204).
shall not be released until the director thereof finds that The burden, to be sure, is on the prosecution to prove
his liberty would no longer constitute a menace. beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the crime, but insanity is presumed, and ". . .
2. People vs. Bonoan when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the
defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing
Facts: It appears that in the morning of December 12, that fact rests upon him. . . ." (U. S. vs. Martinez [1916],
1934, the defendant Celestino Bonoan met the now 34 Phil., 305, 308, 309; U. S. vs. Bascos, supra.) We
deceased Carlos Guison on Avenida Rizal near a affirm and reiterate this doctrine.
barbershop close to Tom's Dixie Kitchen. Francisco
Beech, who was at the time in the barbershop, heard the In the case at bar, the defense interposed being that the
defendant say in Tagalog, "I will kill you." Beech turned defendant was insane at the time he killed the deceased,
around and saw the accused withdrawing his right hand, the obligation of proving that affirmative allegation rests
which held a knife, from the side of Guison who said, on the defense.
also in Tagalog, "I will pay you", but Bonoan replied
saying that he would kill him and then stabbed Guison In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the
thrice on the left side. The assault was witnessed by time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of
policeman Damaso Arnoco who rushed to the scene and the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before
arrested Bonoan and took possession of the knife, and after that time. Direct testimony is not required
Exhibit A. Guison was taken to the Philippine General (Wharton, Criminal Evidence, p. 684; State vs. Wright,
Hospital where he died two days later. Exhibit C is the 134 Mo., 404; 35 S. W., 1145; State vs. Simms, 68 Mo.,
report of the autopsy performed on December 15, 1934, 305; Rinkard vs. State, 157 Ind., 534; 62 N. E., 14;
by Dr. Sixto de los Angeles. People vs. Tripler, I Wheeler, Crim. Cas., 48), nor are
specific acts of derangement essential (People vs.
As the killing of the deceased by the defendant-appellant Tripler, supra) to established insanity as a defense. Mind
is admitted, it does not seem necessary to indulge in any can only be known by outward acts. Thereby, we read
extended analysis of the testimony of the witnesses for the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and
the prosecution. The defense set up being that of come to determine whether his acts conform to the
insanity, the only question to be determined in this practice of people of sound mind. To prove insanity,
appeal is whether or not the defendant-appellant was therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and
insane at the time of the commission of the crime convincing, suffice (People vs. Bascos [1922], 44 Phil.,
charged. 204).

Issue: (a) From the evidence presented by the defense,

uncontradicted by the prosecution, it appears that the
Ruling: We are of the opinion that the defendant- herein defendant-appellant, during the periods from April
appellant was demented at the time he perpetrated the 11 to April 26, 1922, and from January 6 to January 10,
serious offense charged in the information and that 1926, was confined in the insane department of the San
consequently he is exempt from criminal liability. Lazaro Hospital suffering from a disease diagnosed as
dementia præcox. His confinement during these periods,
In conformity with paragraph 1 of article 12 of the it is true, was long before the commission of the offense
Revised Penal Code, the defendant shall kept in on December 12, 1934, but this is a circumstance which
confinement in the San Lazaro Hospital or such other tends to show that the recurrence of the ailment at the
hospital for the insane as may be designated by the time of the occurrence of the crime is not entirely lacking
Director of the Philippine Health Service, there to remain of any rational or scientific foundation.
confined until the CFI of Manila shall otherwise order or
decree. (b) All persons suffering from dementia præcox are
clearly to be regarded as having mental disease to a
I. The first view is that insanity as a defense in a degree that disqualifies them for legal responsibility for
confession and avoidance and as must be their actions (Mental Disorder in Medico-Legal Relations
proved beyond reasonable doubt when the by Dr. Albert M. Barrett in Peterson, Haines and
commission of a crime is established, and the Webster, Legal Medicine and Toxology, vol. I, p. 613).
defense of insanity is not made out beyond a According to Dr. Elias Domingo, chief alienist of the
reasonable doubt, conviction follows. In other Insular Psychopathic Hospital, the symptoms of
words, proof of insanity at the time of committing dementia præcox, in certain periods of excitement, are
the criminal act should be clear and satisfactory similar to those of manic depressive psychosis (p. 19, t.
s. n.) and, in either case, the mind appears

89
 AB
"deteriorated" because, "when a person becomes During the preliminary investigation conducted by the
affected by this kind of disease, either dementia præcox justice of the peace of Sipocot, the accused pleaded
or manic depresive psychosis, during the period of guilty, as shown by Exhibit E. At the trial of the case in
excitement, he has no control whatever of his acts." (P. the CFI, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, but
21, t. s. n.) Even if viewed under the general medico- did not testify. His counsel presented the testimony of
legal classification of manic-depressive insanity, "it is two guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was
largely in relation with the question of irrestible impulse confined to the effect that his conduct there was rather
that forensic relations of manic actions will have to be strange and that he behaved like an insane person; that
considered. There is in this disorder a pathologic sometimes he would remove his clothes and go stark
lessening or normal inhibitions and the case with which naked in the presence of his fellow prisoners; that at
impulses may lead to actions impairs deliberations and times he would remain silent and indifferent to his
the use of normal checks to motor impulses" (Peterson, surroundings; that he would refused to take a bath and
Haines and Webster, Legal Medicine and Toxology [2d wash his clothes until forced by the prison authorities;
ed., 1926], vol, I, p. 617). and that sometimes he would sing in chorus with his
fellow prisoners, or even alone by himself without being
(c) According to the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. asked; and that once when the door of his cell was
Celedonio S. Francisco, at one time an interne at San opened, he suddenly darted from inside into the prison
Lazaro Hospital, for four (4) days immediately preceding compound apparently in an attempt to regain his liberty.
December 12, 1934 — the date when the crime was
committed — the defendant and appellant had "an attack Issue:
of insomnia", which is one of the symptoms of, and may
lead to, dementia præcox (Exhibit 3, defense testimony Ruling: The appeal is based merely on the theory that
of Dr. Celedonio S. Francisco, pp. 13, 14, t. s. n.). the appellant is an imbecile and therefore exempt from
criminal liability under article 12 of the Revised Penal
(d) The defendant-appellant appears to have been Code. The trial court rejected this same theory and we
arrested and taken to the police station on the very same are inclined to agree with the lower court. According to
day of the perpetration of the crime, and although the very witness of the defendant, Dr. Francisco Gomez,
attempts were made by detectives to secure a statement who examined him, it was his opinion that Abelardo was
from him (see Exhibit B and D and testimony of Charles suffering only from feeblemindedness and not imbecility
Strabel, t. s. n. pp. 9, 10) he was sent by the police and that he could distinguish right from wrong.
department to the Psychopathic Hospital the day
following the commission of the crime. This is an In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile
indication that the police authorities themselves doubted within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal
the mental normalcy of the acused, which doubt found Code so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must
confirmation in the official reports submitted by the be deprived completely of reason or discernment and
specialists of the San Lazaro Hospital. freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.

(e) According to the report (Exhibit 4) of the alienist in As to the strange behavior of the accused during his
charge, Dr. Toribio Joson, which report was made within confinement, assuming that it was not feigned to
the first month of treatment, the defendant was suffering stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
from a form of psychosis, called manic depressive feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental
psychosis. condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife.
As to the strange behavior of the accused during his
3. People vs. Formigones confinement, assuming that it was not feigned to
stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
Facts: In the month of November, 1946, the defendant feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental
Abelardo Formigones was living on his farm in Bahao, condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife.
Libmanan, municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, with
his wife, Julia Agricola, and his five children. From there After a careful study of the record, we are convinced that
they went to live in the house of his half-brother, the appellant is not an imbecile. According to the
Zacarias Formigones, in the barrio of Binahian of the evidence, during his marriage of about 16 years, he has
same municipality of Sipocot, to find employment as not done anything or conducted himself in anyway so as
harvesters of palay. After about a month's stay or rather to warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile.
on December 28, 1946, late in the afternoon, Julia was
sitting at the head of the stairs of the house. The The appellant has all the sympathies of the Court. He
accused, without any previous quarrel or provocation seems to be one of those unfortunate beings, simple,
whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house and and even feebleminded, whose faculties have not been
stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating fully developed. His action in picking up the body of his
the right lung and causing a severe hemorrhage wife after she fell down to the ground, dead, taking her
resulting in her death not long thereafter. The blow sent upstairs, laying her on the floor, and lying beside her for
Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground, immediately hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his
followed by her husband Abelardo who, taking her up in loved one though he thought that she has betrayed him.
his arms, carried her up the house, laid her on the floor Although he did not exactly surrender to the authorities,
of the living room and then lay down beside her. In this still he made no effort to flee and compel the police to
position he was found by the people who came in hunt him down and arrest him. In his written statement
response to the shouts for help made by his eldest he readily admitted that he killed his wife, and at the trial
daughter, Irene Formigones, who witnessed and testified he made no effort to deny or repudiate said written
to the stabbing of her mother by her father. statement, thus saving the government all the trouble
and expense of catching him, and insuring his
Investigated by the Constabulary, defendant Abelardo conviction.
signed a written statement, Exhibit D, wherein he
admitted that he killed The motive was admittedly of 4. People vs. Puno
jealousy because according to his statement he used to
have quarrels with his wife for the reason that he often Facts: There is no doubt that at about two o'clock in the
saw her in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he afternoon of September 8, 1970, Ernesto Puno, 28, a
suspected that the two were maintaining illicit relations jeepney driver, entered a bedroom in the house of
because he noticed that his had become indifferent to Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, a widow. The house was
him (defendant). located in the area known as Little Baguio, Barrio
Tinajeros Malabon, Rizal

90
 AB
On seeing Aling Kikay sitting in bed, Puno insulted her It should be stressed that between July 24, 1970 when
by saying: "Mangkukulam ka mambabarang mayroon appellant suffered from his last attack or relapse and
kang bubuyog". Then, he repeatedly slapped her and September 8, 1970 when he committed the alleged
struck her several times on the head with a hammer until crime, barely 1 month and 15 days had elapsed.
she was dead. Medically speaking, the interval was not sufficient time
for appellant's full recovery nor did such time give any
The assault was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz, 23, guaranty for his mental disease to be "cured."
who was in the bedroom with the old woman, and by
Lina Pajes, 27, a tenant of the adjoining room. They Appellant was mentally sick at the time he attacked the
testified that Puno's eyes were reddish. His look was victim. He previously suffered from a "displacement of
baleful and menacing. Puno was a neighbor of Aling aggressive and hostile behavior" when he got angry with
Kikay. his wife and when he tied and boxed their dog. He had
the mental delusion that a "mangkukulam" was inflicting
After the killing, Puno went to the room of Lina, where harm on him. This delusion found its mark on the victim
Hilaria had taken refuge, and, according to Hilaria, he whom he believed was the "mangkukulam" and fearing
made the following confession and threat: "Huwag that she would harm him, appellant had to kill her in self-
kayong magkakamaling tumawag ng pulis at sabihin defense. Simply stated, the victim was a mere
ninyo na umalis kayo ng bahay at hindi ninyo alam kung consequence of his mental delusion. He killed the
sino ang pumatay sa matanda." Or, according to Lina, "mangkukulam" as personified by the victim; he did not
Puno said: "Pinatay ko na iyong matanda. Huwag kin Aling Kikay herself. And the said fatal act was made
kayong tumawag ng pulis. Pag tumawag kayo ng pulis, by appellant in defending himself from the
kayo ang paghihigantihan ko. " "mangkukulam".

After the killing, Puno fled to his parents' house at Barrio While it has been established that appellant was
Tugatog, Malabon and then went to the house of his "manageable" and was "presently free from any social
second cousin, Teotimo Puno, located at Barrio San incapacitating psychotic symptoms" during the trial, the
Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan, reaching that place in the fact remains that at the very moment of the commission
evening. How he was able to go to that place, which was of the alleged crime, he was still a mentally sick person.
then flooded, is not shown in the record. No evidence was produced to prove otherwise against
the bulk of appellant's medical history for 8 years clearly
Issue: indicative of his mental psychosis.

Ruling: When insanity is alleged as a ground for As earlier stated, "social recovery" of a schizophrenic
exemption from responsibility, the evidence on this point does not mean that he is "cured" (totally recovered) from
must refer to the time preceding the act under the disease.
prosecution or to the very moment of its execution (U.S.
vs. Guevara, 27 Phil. 547). Insanity should be proven by In view of the foregoing, appellant should be acquitted of
clear and positive evidence (People vs. Bascos, 44 Phil. the charge of murder.
204).
Other Notes:
The defense contends that Puno was insane when he
killed Francisca Col because he had chronic  Symptomatically, the schizophrenic reactions are
schizophrenia since 1962; he was suffering from recognizable through odd and bizarre behavior
schizophrenia on September 8, 1970, when he liquidated apparent in aloofness, suspiciousness, or periods of
the victim, and schizophrenia is a form of psychosis impulsive destructiveness and immature and
which deprives a person of discernment and freedom of exaggerated emotionality, often ambivalently
will. directed and considered inappropriate by the
observer. The interpersonal perceptions are
Insanity under article 12 of the Revised Penal Code distorted in the more serious states by delusional
means that the accused must be deprived completely of and hallucinatory material. (p. 355, supra).
reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time  Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder
of committing the crime (People vs- Formigones, 87 Phil. characterized by inability to distinguish between
658, 660). fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by
hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called
Insanity exists when there is complete deprivation of dementia praecox, it is the most common form of
intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is psychosis and usually develops between the ages of
deprived of reason, he acts without the least 15 and 30 (Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine
discernment because there is complete absence of the and Nursing, MillerKeane p. 860).
power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of
freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental 5. People vs. Dungo
faculties will not exclude imputability." (People vs.
Ambal, G.R. No. 52688, October 17, 1980; People vs. Facts: On March 16, 1987 between the hours of 2:00
Renegade, L-27031, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 275, 286; and 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Dungo went to the
People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288, 292. As to "el trastorno place where Mrs. Sigua was holding office at the
mental transitorio as an exempting circumstance, see I Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After
Cuello Calon, Codigo Penal, 15th Ed., 1974. pp. 498-504 a brief talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope
and art. 8 of the Spanish Penal Code.) he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times.
Accomplishing the morbid act, he went down the
After evaluating counsel de oficio's contentions in the staircase and out of the DAR's office with blood stained
light of the strict rule just stated and the circumstances clothes, carrying along a bloodied bladed weapon. (TSN,
surrounding the killing, we are led to the conclusion that pp. 4-19, 33-46, April 13, 1987; TSN, pp. 5-21, 28-38,
Puno was not legally insane when he killed the hapless April 20, 1987).
and helpless victim. The facts and the findings of the
psychiatrists reveal that on that tragic occasion he was The autopsy report (Exh. "A") submitted by Dra. Melinda
not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will. dela Cruz Cabugawan reveals that the victim sustained
fourteen (14) wounds, five (5) of which were fatal.
o J. Makasiar, Dissenting Opinion
Rodolfo Sigua, the husband of the deceased, testified
that, sometime in the latter part of February, 1987, the

91
 AB
accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him concerning wrong test. Insane delusion is manifested by a false
the actuations of his wife (the victim) in requiring so belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which
many documents from the accused. Rodolfo Sigua would be incredible under the given circumstances to the
explained to the accused the procedure in the same person if he is of compos mentis. Under the
Department of Agrarian Reform but the latter just said delusion test, an insane person believes in a state of
"never mind, I could do it my own way." Rodolfo Sigua things, the existence of which no rational person would
further testified that his wife's annual salary is believe. A person acts under an irresistible impulse
P17,000.00, and he spent the amount of P75,000.00 for when, by reason of duress or mental disease, he has
the funeral and related expenses due to the untimely lost the power to choose between right and wrong, to
death of his wife. (TSN, pp. 4-21, April 22, 1987). avoid the act in question, his free agency being at the
time destroyed. Under the right and wrong test, a person
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition
was insane at the time of the commission of the offense. of the mental and moral faculties as to render him
incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
The defense first presented the testimony of Andrea (See 44 C.J.S. 2)
Dungo, the wife of the accused. According to her, her
husband had been engaged in farming up to 1982 when So far, under our jurisdiction, there has been no case
he went to Lebanon for six (6) months. Later, in that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity.
December 1983, her husband again left for Saudi Arabia However, We can apply as test or criterion the definition
and worked as welder. Her husband did not finish his of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised
two-year contract because he got sick. Upon his arrival, Administrative Code, which states that insanity is "a
he underwent medical treatment. He was confined for manifestation in language or conduct, of disease or
one week at the Macabali Clinic. Thereafter he had his defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently
monthly check-up. Because of his sickness, he was not diseased or disordered condition of the mentality,
able to resume his farming. The couple, instead, functional or organic, and characterized by perversion,
operated a small store which her husband used to tend. inhibition, or by disordered function of the sensory or of
Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, she noticed her the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered
husband to be in deep thought always; maltreating their volition." Insanity as defined above is evinced by a
children when he was not used to it before; demanding deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties
another payment from his customers even if the latter which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane
had paid; chasing any child when their children quarreled person has no full and clear understanding of the nature
with other children. There were also times when her and consequence of his act.
husband would inform her that his feet and head were on
fire when in truth they were not. On the fateful day of Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental
March 16, 1987, at around noon time, her husband condition of the person whose sanity is in issue, at the
complained to her of stomach ache; however, they did very time of doing the act which is the subject of inquiry.
not bother to buy medicine as he was immediately However, it is permissible to receive evidence of his
relieved of the pain therein. Thereafter, he went back to mental condition for a reasonable period both before and
the store. When Andrea followed him to the store, he after the time of the act in question. Direct testimony is
was no longer there. She got worried as he was not in not required nor the specific acts of derangement
his proper mind. She looked for him. She returned home essential to establish insanity as a defense. The
only when she was informed that her husband had vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts:
arrived. While on her way home, she heard from people thereby we read the thoughts, motives and emotions of a
the words "mesaksak" and "menaksak" (translated as person; and through which we determine whether his
"stabbing" and "has stabbed"). She saw her husband in acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind.
her parents-in-law's house with people milling around, (People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87)
including the barangay officials. She instinctively asked
her husband why he did such act, but he replied, "that is In the case at bar, defense's expert witnesses, who are
the only cure for my ailment. I have a cancer in my doctors of the National Center for Mental Health,
heart." Her husband further said that if he would not be concluded that the accused was suffering from
able to kill the victim in a number of days, he would die, psychosis or insanity classified under organic
and that he chose to live longer even in jail. The mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular
testimony on the statements of her husband was accident or stroke before, during and after the
corroborated by their neighbor Thelma Santos who commission of the crime charged. (Exhibit L, p. 4).
heard their conversation. (See TSN, pp. 12-16, July 10, Accordingly, the mental illness of the accused was
1987). Turning to the barangay official, her husband characterized by perceptual disturbances manifested
exclaimed, "here is my wallet, you surrender me." through impairment of judgment and impulse control,
However, the barangay official did not bother to get the impairment of memory and disorientation, and hearing of
wallet from him. That same day the accused went to strange voices. The accused allegedly suffered from
Manila. (TSN, pp. 6-39, June 10, 1981) psychosis which was organic. The defect of the brain,
therefore, is permanent.
Issue:
Dr. Echavez, defense's expert witness, admitted that the
Ruling: One who suffers from insanity at the time of the insanity of the accused was permanent and did not have
commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal a period for normal thinking.
sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held
criminally responsible for his acts. His unlawful act is the However, Dr. Echavez disclosed that the manifestation
product of a mental disease or a mental defect. In order or the symptoms of psychosis may be treated with
that insanity may relieve a person from criminal medication. Thus, although the defect of the brain is
responsibility, it is necessary that there be a complete permanent, the manifestation of insanity is curable.
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is,
that the accused be deprived of cognition; that he acts Dr. Echavez further testified that the accused was
without the least discernment; that there be complete suffering from psychosis since January of 1987.
absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will.
If we are to believe the contention of the defense, the
It is difficult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is accused was supposed to be mentally ill during this
no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. confrontation. However, it is not usual for an insane
Under foreign jurisdiction, there are three major criteria person to confront a specified person who may have
in determining the existence of insanity, namely: wronged him. Be it noted that the accused was
delusion test, irresistible impulse test, and the right and supposed to be suffering from impairment of the
92
 AB
memory, We infer from this confrontation that the Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately
accused was aware of his acts. This event proves that report the matter and did not leave the house of the
the accused was not insane or if insane, his insanity accused that same evening. In fact, she slept in the
admitted of lucid intervals. house of the accused that evening and the following
morning she scrubbed the floor and did her daily routine
Insanity in law exists when there is a complete work in the house. She only left the house in the evening
deprivation of intelligence. The statement of one of the of March 17, 1976.
expert witnesses presented by the defense, Dr.
Echavez, that the accused knew the nature of what Somehow, in the evening of March 17, 1976, the family
he had done makes it highly doubtful that accused of the accused learned what happened the night before
was insane when he committed the act charged. in the store between Policarpio and Estelita and a
quarrel ensued among them prompting Estelita Ronaya
The evidence shows that the accused, at the time he to go back to her house. When Estelita's mother
perpetrated the act was carrying an envelope where confronted her and asked her why she went home that
the fatal weapon was hidden. This is an evidence evening, the complainant could not answer but cried and
that the accused consciously adopted a pattern to cried. It was only the following morning on March 18,
kill the victim. The suddenness of the attack classified 1976 that the complainant told her mother that she was
the killing as treacherous and therefore murder. After raped by the accused. Upon knowing what happened to
the accused ran away from the scene of the incident her daughter, the mother Alejandra Ronaya, immediately
after he stabbed the victim several times, he was accompanied her to the house of Patrolman Bernardo
apprehended and arrested in Metro Manila, an Mairina of the Villasis Police Force who lives in Barrio
indication that he took flight in order to evade arrest. San Nicolas, Villasis, Pangasinan. Patrolman Mairina is
This to the mind of the Court is another indicia that he a cousin of the father of the complainant. He advised
was conscious and knew the consequences of his acts them to proceed to the municipal building while he went
in stabbing the victim (Rollo, p. 63) to fetch the accused. The accused was later brought to
the police headquarter with the bolo, Exhibit "E", which
Generally, in criminal cases, every doubt is resolved in the accused allegedly used in threatening the
favor of the accused. However, in the defense of complainant.
insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be
resolved in fervor of sanity. The burden of proving the The principal submission of appellant is that he was
affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. suffering from a metal aberration characterized as
schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions
The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the upon Estelita. At the urging of his counsel, the trial court
presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. suspended the trial and ordered appellant confined at
Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance and the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for
as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. observation and treatment. In the meantime, the case
Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order was archived. Appellant was admitted into the hospital
to acquit an accused on the ground of insanity. on 29 December 1976 and stayed there until 26 June
Appellant has not successfully discharged the 1978.
burden of overcoming the presumption that he
committed the crime as charged freely, knowingly, During his confinement, the hospital prepared four (4)
and intelligently. clinical reports on the mental and physical condition of
the appellant, all signed by Dr. Simplicio N. Masikip and
6. People vs. Rafanan Dr. Arturo E. Nerit, physician-in-charge and chief,
Forensic Psychiatry Service, respectively.
Facts: On February 27, 1976, complainant Estelita
Ronaya who was then only fourteen years old was hired Issue:
as a househelper by the mother of the accused, Ines
Rafanan alias "Baket Ines" with a salary of P30.00 a Ruling: Accordingly, we must reject the insanity
month. defense of appellant Rafanan.

The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with Although the Court has ruled many times in the past on
his mother in the same house at Barangay San Nicholas, the insanity defense, it was only in People vs.
Villasis, Pangasinan. Policarpio was then married and Formigones that the Court elaborated on the required
had two children. standards of legal insanity, quoting extensively from the
Commentaries of Judge Guillermo Guevara on the
On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after dinner, Estelita Revised Penal Code, thus:
Ronaya was sent by the mother of the accused to help in
their store which was located in front of their house The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this
about six (6) meters away. Attending to the store at the exempting circumstance may be taken into account, it is
time was the accused. At 11:00 o'clock in the evening, necessary that there be a complete deprivation of
the accused called the complainant to help him close the intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the
door of the store and as the latter complied and went accused be deprived of reason; that there be no
near him, he suddenly pulled the complainant inside the responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the
store and said, "Come, let us have sexual intercourse," least discernment; (Decision of the Supreme Court of
to which Estelita replied, "I do not like," and struggled to Spain of November 21, 1891; 47 Jur. Crim. 413.) that
free herself and cried. The accused held a bolo there be a complete absence of the power to discern,
measuring 1-1/2 feet including the handle which he (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of April 29,
pointed to the throat of the complainant threatening her 1916; 96 Jur. Crim. 239) or that there be a total
with said bolo should she resist. Then, he forced her to deprivation of freedom of the will. (Decision of the
lie down on a bamboo bed, removed her pants and after Supreme Court of Spain of April 9, 1872; 6 Jur. Crim.
unfastening the zipper of his own pants, went on top of 239) For this reason, it was held that the imbecility or
complainant and succeeded having carnal knowledge of insanity at the time of the commission of the act should
her in spite of her resistance and struggle. After the absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of
sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the will, because mere abnormality of his mental faculties
complainant not to report the matter to her mother or does not exclude imputability. (Decision of the Supreme
anybody in the house, otherwise he would kill her. Court of Spain of April 20, 1911; 86 Jur. Crim. 94, 97.)

93
 AB
The standards set out in Formigones were commonly AVELINA MIRADOR was then in the pigpen when she
adopted in subsequent cases. 11 A linguistic or heard the children of the accused shouting and crying
grammatical analysis of those standards suggests that inside her house. She called out to them and asked what
Formigones established two (2) distinguishable tests: (a) was wrong. She received no reply. Her nephew barged
the test of cognition — "complete deprivation of into the house and brought out the children one at a
intelligence in committing the [criminal] act," and (b) the time, leaving the accused with Lilia. While passing by
test of volition — "or that there be a total deprivation Avelina, her nephew warned her: "You better run."
freedom of the will." But our caselaw shows common Avelina then saw the accused emerge from the house
reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on a test holding a bolo. She scampered for safety. 7
relating to "freedom of the will;" examination of our
caselaw has failed to turn up any case where this Court She declared that during the period that the accused and
has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he his family stayed in her house, she did not notice
was totally deprived of "freedom of the will," i.e., without anything peculiar in accused's behavior that would
an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence." suggest that he was suffering from any mental illness.
Neither did she know of any reason why the accused
The above testimony, in substance, negates killed his wife as she never saw the two engage in any
complete destruction of intelligence at the time of argument while they were living with her. 8
commission of the act charged which, in the current
state of our caselaw, is critical if the defense of The accused declared that he has absolutely no
insanity is to be sustained. The fact that appellant recollection of the stabbing incident. He could not
Rafanan threatened complainant Estelita with death remember where he was on that fateful day. He did not
should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted know the whereabouts of his wife. It was only during one
by him, indicates, to the mind of the Court, that of the hearings when his mother-in-law showed him a
Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible moral picture of his wife in a coffin that he learned about her
quality of that assault. The defense sought to suggest, death. He, however, was not aware of the cause of her
through Dr. Jovellano's last two (2) answers above, that demise. He claimed that he did not know whether he
person suffering from schizophrenia sustains not only suffered from any mental illness and did not remember
impairment of the mental faculties but also deprivation of being confined at the NCMH for treatment.
there power self-control. We do not believe that Dr.
Jovellano's testimony, by itself, sufficiently demonstrated Issue:
the truth of that proposition. In any case, as already
pointed out, it is complete loss of intelligence which must Ruling: In the case at bar, the appellant was
be shown if the exempting circumstance of insanity is to diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia when
be found. he was committed to the NCMH months after he
killed his wife. Medical books describe schizophrenia
The law presumes every man to be sane. A person as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
accused of a crime has the burden of proving his distinguish between fantasy and reality and often
affirmative allegation of insanity. Here, appellant failed accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly
to present clear and convincing evidence regarding called dementia pracecox, it is the most common form of
his state of mind immediately before and during the psychosis. 3 Symptomatically, schizophrenic reactions
sexual assault on Estelita. It has been held that are recognizable through odd and bizarre behavior
inquiry into the mental state of the accused should apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
relate to the period immediately before or at the very destructiveness and immature and exaggerated
moment the act is committed. Appellant rested his emotionality, often ambivalently directed. The
case on the testimonies of two (2) physicians (Dr. interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the more
Jovellano and Dr. Nerit) which, however, did not serious states by delusions and hallucinations. In the
purport to characterize his mental condition during most disorganized form of schizophrenic living,
that critical period of time. They did not specifically withdrawal into a fantasy life takes place and is
relate to circumstances occurring on or immediately associated with serious thought disorder and profound
before the day of the rape. Their testimonies habit deterioration in which the usual social customs are
consisted of broad statements based on general disregarded. 34 During the initial stage, the common
behavioral patterns of people afflicted with early symptom is aloofness, a withdrawal behind barriers
schizophrenia. of loneliness, hopelessness, hatred and fear. Frequently,
the patient would seem preoccupied and dreamy and
7. People vs. Madarang may appear "far away." He does not empathize with the
feelings of others and manifests little concern about the
Facts: The accused and Lilia Mirador were legally realities of life situations. The schizophrenic suffers from
married and their union was blessed with seven (7) a feeling of rejection and an intolerable lack of self-
children. The accused worked as a seaman for sixteen respect. He withdraws from emotional involvement with
(16) years. He was employed in a United States ship other people to protect himself from painful relationships.
until 1972. In 1973, he worked as a seaman in Germany There is shallowness of affect, a paucity of emotional
and stayed there for nine (9) years, or until 1982. responsiveness and a loss of spontaneity. Frequently, he
Thereafter, he returned to his family in Infanta, becomes neglectful of personal care and cleanliness. 35
Pangasinan, and started a hardware store business. His A variety of subjective experiences, associated with or
venture however failed. Worse, he lost his entire fortune influenced by mounting anxiety and fears precede the
due to cockfighting. 4 earliest behavioral changes and oddities. He becomes
aware of increasing tension and confusion and becomes
In the latter part of July 1993, the accused, his wife Lilia distracted in conversation manifested by his inability to
and their children were forced to stay in the house of maintain a train of thought in his conversations.
Avelina Mirador as the accused could no longer support Outwardly, this will be noticed as blocks or breaks in
his family. Moreover, Lilia was then already heavy with conversations. The schizophrenic may not speak or
their eight child and was about to give birth. 5 respond appropriately to his companions. He may look
fixedly away, or he may appear to stare, as he does not
On September 3, 1993, at about 5:00 p.m., the accused regularly blink his eyes in his attempt to hold his
and Lilia had a squabble. The accused was jealous of attention. 36
another man and was accusing Lilia of infidelity. In the
heat of the fight and in the presence of their children, the None of the witnesses presented by the appellant
accused stabbed Lilia, resulting in her untimely demise. declared that he exhibited any of the myriad
6 symptoms associated with schizophrenia
immediately before or simultaneous with the
94
 AB
stabbing incident. To be sure, the record is bereft of "1. On March 25, 1995, at around seven o'clock in the
even a single account of abnormal or bizarre behavior on morning, fifteen-year old Lorenzo Robiños was in his
the part of the appellant prior to that fateful day. Although parents' house at Barangay San Isibro in Camiling,
Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a high possibility that the Tarlac. While Lorenzo was cooking, he heard his
appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia at parents, appellant Melecio Robiños and the victim
the time of the stabbing, he also declared that Lorenza Robiños, who were at the sala, quarrelling.
schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they are
capable of distinguishing right from wrong. 37 Hence the "2. Lorenzo heard his mother tell appellant, 'Why did you
importance of adducing proof to show that the appellant come home, why don't you just leave?' After hearing
was not in his lucid interval at the time he committed the what his mother said, Lorenzo, at a distance of about
offense. Although the appellant was diagnosed with five meters, saw appellant, with a double-bladed knife,
schizophrenia a few months after the stabbing incident, stab Lorenza on the right shoulder. Blood gushed from
the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of where Lorenza was hit and she fell down on the floor.
the offense may be accorded weight only if there is also Upon witnessing appellant's attack on his mother,
proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or Lorenzo immediately left their house and ran to his
simultaneous to the commission of the crime. Evidence grandmother's house where he reported the incident.
on the alleged insanity must refer to the time preceding
the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its "3. At around eight o'clock in the morning of the same
execution. 38 day, Benjamin Bueno, the brother of the victim Lorenza
Robiños, was at the house of his mother Remedios
In the case at bar, we find the evidence adduced by Bueno at Barangay San Isidro. Benjamin, a resident of
the defense insufficient to establish his claim of Barangay Mabilang in Paniqui, Tarlac, went to his
insanity at the time he killed his wife. There is a mother's house for the purpose of informing his relatives
dearth of evidence on record to show that the appellant that on the evening of March 24, 1995, appellant had
was completely of unsound mind prior to or coetaneous killed his uncle, Alejandro Robiños, at Barangay
with the commission of the crime. The arguments Mabilang. However while Benjamin was at his mother's
advanced by the appellant to prove his insanity are house, he received the more distressing news that his
speculative and non-sequitur. For one, his claim that he own sister Lorenza had been killed by appellant.
has absolutely no recollection of the stabbing
incident amounts to a mere general denial that can "4. Upon learning of the attack on his sister, Benjamin
be made with facility. The fact that Avelina and her did not go to her house because he was afraid of what
nephew were frightened at the sight of the appellant appellant might do. From his mother's house, which was
holding a bolo after he killed his wife does not, by any about 150 meters away from his sister's home, Benjamin
stretch of imagination, prove that the appellant has lost saw appellant who shouted at him, 'It's good you would
his grip on reality on that occasion. Neither is the see how your sister died.'
appellant's seemingly non-repentant attitude immediately
after he stabbed his wife an indicium of his alleged "5. Benjamin sought the help of Barangay Captain
insanity. Even criminals of stable mental condition take Virgilio Valdez who called the police station at Camiling,
this non-remorseful stance. Similarly, that the appellant Tarlac. SPO1 Herbert Lugo and SPO3 Tirso Martin,
and his wife were never seen quarreling prior to that together with the other members of the PNP Alert Team
fateful day does not by itself prove the appellant's at Camiling, Tarlac, immediately went to Barangay San
unstable mental condition. Neither can it be said that Isidro. The police, together with Benjamin Bueno and
jealousy is not a sufficient reason to kill a pregnant some barangay officials and barangay folk, proceeded to
spouse. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases where the scene of the crime where they saw blood dripping
lives had been terminated for the flimsiest reason. from the house of appellant and Lorenza. The police told
appellant to come out of the house. When appellant
The appellant attributes his loss of sanity to the fact that failed to come out, the police, with the help of barangay
he lost his business and became totally dependent on officials, detached the bamboo wall from the part of the
his mother-in-law for support. We find this, however, house where blood was dripping. The removal of the wall
purely speculative and unsupported by record. To be exposed that section of the house where SPO1 Lugo
sure, there was no showing of any odd or bizarre saw appellant embracing [his] wife.
behavior on the part of the appellant after he lost his
fortune and prior to his commission of the crime that may "6. Appellant and Lorenza were lying on the floor.
be symptomatic of his mental illness. In fact, the Appellant, who was lying on his side and holding a
appellant's mother-in-law declared that during the time bloodstained double-bladed knife with his right hand,
that she knew the appellant and while he lived in her was embracing his wife. He was uttering the words, 'I will
house, she did not notice anything irregular or abnormal kill myself, I will kill myself.' Lorenza, who was lying on
in the appellant's behavior that could have suggested her back and facing upward, was no longer breathing.
that he was suffering from any mental illness. She appeared to be dead.

An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not "7. The police and the barangay officials went up the
guilty by reason thereof. He admits committing the crime stairs of the house and pulled appellant away from
but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at Lorenza's body. Appellant dropped the knife which was
the time of its commission. Hence, the accused is tried taken by SPO3 Martin. Appellant tried to resist the
on the issue of sanity alone and if found to be sane, a people who held him but was overpowered. The police,
judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on with the help of the barangay officials present, tied his
the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing hands and feet with a plastic rope. However, before he
the crime. 39 As the appellant, in the case at bar, failed was pulled away from the body of his wife and restrained
to establish by convincing evidence his alleged insanity by the police, appellant admitted to Rolando Valdez, a
at the time he killed his wife, we are constrained to affirm neighbor of his and a barangay kagawad, that he had
his conviction. killed his wife, showing him the bloodstained knife.

8. People vs. Robios "8. Upon examining Lorenza, SPO1 Lugo found that she
was already dead. She was pale and not breathing. The
Facts: Version of the Prosecution police thus solicited the services of a funeral parlor to
take Lorenza's body for autopsy. Appellant was brought
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrates the to the police station at Camiling, Tarlac. However, he
prosecution's version of how appellant assaulted his had to be taken to the Camiling District Hospital for the
pregnant wife, culminating in a brutal bloodbath, as treatment of a stab wound.
follows:
95
 AB
"9. After the incident, Senior Inspector Reynaldo B. Ruling: A perusal of the records of the case reveals
Orante, the Chief of Police at Camiling, Tarlac, prepared that appellant's claim of insanity is unsubstantiated
a Special Report which disclosed that: and wanting in material proof.

'The victim Lorenza Robiños was six (6) months Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely
pregnant. She suffered 41 stab wounds on the different deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at
parts of her body. the time of the commission of the crime.12 A defendant
in a criminal case who relies on the defense of mental
'That suspect (Melecio Robiños) was under the influence incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of
of liquor/drunk [who] came home and argued/quarreled insanity at the very moment when the crime was
with his wife, until the suspect got irked, [drew] a double committed.13 Only when there is a complete deprivation
knife and delivered forty one (41) stab blows. of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime
should the exempting circumstance of insanity be
'Suspect also stabbed his own body and [was] brought to considered.14
the Provincial Hospital.
The presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity
'Recovered from the crime scene is a double blade and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every
sharp knife about eight (8) inches long including handle.' person is presumed to be of sound mind.15 Accordingly,
one who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity
"10. During the trial of the case, the prosecution was not has the burden of proving it.16 Failing this, one will be
able to present the doctor who conducted the autopsy on presumed to be sane when the crime was committed.
Lorenza Robiños' body. Nor, was the autopsy report
presented as evidence."8 Testimonies from both prosecution and defense
witnesses show no substantial evidence that appellant
Version of the Defense was completely deprived of reason or discernment when
he perpetrated the brutal killing of his wife.
Appellant does not refute the factual allegations of the
prosecution that he indeed killed his wife, but seeks As can be gleaned from the testimonies of the
exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the prosecution witnesses, a domestic altercation preceded
defense of insanity as follows: the fatal stabbing. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant
attacked his wife for no reason at all and without
"Pleading exculpation, herein accused-appellant knowledge of the nature of his action. To be sure, his act
interposed insanity. The defense presented the of stabbing her was a deliberate and conscious reaction
testimonies of the following: to the insulting remarks she had hurled at him as
attested to by their 15-year-old son Lorenzo Robiños.
"FEDERICO ROBIÑOS, 19 years old son of Melecio
Robiños, testified that his parents had occasional Finally, the fact that appellant admitted to responding law
quarrels[. B]efore March 23, 1995, his father told him enforcers how he had just killed his wife may have been
that he had seen a person went [sic] inside their house a manifestation of repentance and remorse -- a natural
and who wanted to kill him. On March 23, 1995, he sentiment of a husband who had realized the
heard his father told the same thing to his mother and wrongfulness of his act. His behavior at the time of the
because of this, his parents quarreled and exchanged killing and immediately thereafter is inconsistent with his
heated words. claim that he had no knowledge of what he had just
done. Barangay Kagawad Rolando Valdez validated the
"LOURDES FAJARDO, nurse of the Tarlac Penal clarity of mind of appellant when the latter confessed to
Colony, testified that she came to know Melecio Robiños the former and to the police officers, and even showed to
only in May to June 1996. Every time she visited him in them the knife used to stab the victim.
his cell, accused isolated himself, 'laging nakatingin sa
malayo', rarely talked, just stared at her and murmured Similarly, an evaluation of the testimonies of the defense
alone. witnesses hardly supports his claim of insanity. The bulk
of the defense evidence points to his allegedly unsound
"BENEDICT REBOLLOS, a detention prisoner of the mental condition after the commission of the crime.
Tarlac Penal Colony, testified that he and the accused Except for appellant's 19-year-old son Federico
were seeing each other everyday from 6:00 o'clock in Robiños,20 all the other defense witnesses testified on
the morning up to 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. He had the supposed manifestations of his insanity after he had
observed that accused sometime[s] refused to respond already been detained in prison.
in the counting of prisoners. Sometimes, he stayed in his
cell even if they were required to fall in line in the plaza To repeat, insanity must have existed at the time of the
of the penal colony. commission of the offense, or the accused must have
been deranged even prior thereto. Otherwise he would
"DOMINGO FRANCISCO, another detention prisoner of still be criminally responsible.21 Verily, his alleged
the Tarlac Penal Colony, testified that as the accused's insanity should have pertained to the period prior to or at
inmate, he had occasion to meet and mingle with the the precise moment when the criminal act was
latter. Accused sometimes was lying down, sitting, committed, not at anytime thereafter. In People v.
looking, or staring on space and without companion, Villa,22 this Court incisively ratiocinated on the matter as
laughing and sometimes crying. follows:

"MELECIO ROBIÑOS, herein accused-appellant, "It could be that accused-appellant was insane at the
testified that on March 25, 1995, he was in their house time he was examined at the center. But, in all
and there was no unusual incident that happened on that probability, such insanity was contracted during the
date. He did not know that he was charged for the crime period of his detention pending trial. He was without
of parricide with unintentional abortion. He could not contact with friends and relatives most of the time. He
remember when he was informed by his children that he was troubled by his conscience, the realization of the
killed his wife. He could not believe that he killed his gravity of the offenses and the thought of a bleak future
wife."9 for him. The confluence of these circumstances may
have conspired to disrupt his mental equilibrium. But, it
Issue: must be stressed, that an inquiry into the mental state of
accused-appellant should relate to the period
immediately before or at the precise moment of doing

96
 AB
the act which is the subject of the inquiry, and his mental Patrimonio, Jr., and homicide for the death of Allan
condition after that crucial period or during the trial is Dacles.
inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal
liability. In fine, this Court needs more concrete evidence Anacito seasonably appealed to us from the decision
on the mental condition of the person alleged to be attributing to the trial court grave error in disregarding the
insane at the time of the perpetration of the crimes in exempting circumstance of insanity.22 He contends that
order that the exempting circumstance of insanity may he was suffering from a psychotic disorder and was,
be appreciated in his favor. x x x." therefore, completely deprived of intelligence when he
stabbed the victims. Even assuming in gratis argumenti
Although Dr. Mendoza testified that it was possible that that he is criminally liable, he is entitled to the mitigating
the accused had already been suffering from psychosis circumstance under paragraph 9, Article 13 of the
at the time of the commission of the crime,27 she Revised Penal Code, which is "illness as would diminish
likewise admitted that her conclusion was not definite the exercise of the willpower of the offender without
and was merely an opinion.28 however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts."

9. People vs. Opuran Issue:

Facts: On 19 November 1998, at about 6:30 p.m., Ruling:

prosecution witness Bambi Herrera was studying his
lessons inside his house. His brother and a certain I. A careful scrutiny of the records, however,
Jason Masbang were outside sitting side by side with indicates that Anacito failed to prove by clear
each other on a plastic chair; opposite them was Allan and convincing evidence the defense of
Dacles, who was lying on a bench.4 insanity.

Moments later, Jason barged into Bambi’s house, Let us examine the evidence offered to support Anacito’s
shouting: "There’s a long-haired man!" Bambi stood up defense of insanity. The appellant points to the testimony
and looked through the open door. He saw appellant of prosecution witness Bambi Herrera that Anacito was a
Anacito Opuran stab Allan on the chest with a knife while silent man who would sharply stare at the lady boarders
the latter appeared to be trying to stand up from the a few days before the stabbing incident, and would wear
bench. Although Allan had several stab wounds on Barong Tagalog and long pants when there was no
different parts of his body, he managed to stand up and occasion requiring a formal attire. The appellant also
run inside Bambi’s house, with Anacito chasing him. highlights that the testimony of prosecution witness
Bambi immediately locked the door from the inside to Tomas Bacsal, Jr., that there was a 15-minute time
prevent Anacito from entering. But the latter tried to force interval between the two stabbing incidents shows that
the door open by thrusting a knife at the door shutter. He the stabbing spree was without any known motive.44
also threw stones at the door. After a short while,
Anacito left.5 The testimonial evidence of the defense also attempted
to prove the alleged behavioral oddity of Anacito two to
With Anacito gone, Bambi went out to ask the aid of his three days prior to the killing. His sister Remedios
neighbors so he could bring Allan to the hospital. He saw noticed that his eyes were reddish and that he was angry
Anacito’s two brothers and asked for their assistance. with her.45 His brother Francisco also observed that he
But one of them merely said: "Never mind because he (Anacito) would sometimes talk to himself, laugh, shout,
[referring to Anacito] is mentally imbalanced."6 As and utter bad words, and , at times, he was just quiet.46
nobody from among his neighbors responded to his plea Also relied upon by the appellant are the testimony of
for help, Bambi carried Allan on his shoulders and Remedios on his psychiatric history and the expert
dragged him to the lower portion of the neighborhood. testimony of the EVRMC psychiatrist, Dr. Verona.
Several persons, who were having a drinking session,
helped Bambi bring Allan to the hospital. Allan, however, For one thing, it was only Bambi’s personal perception
died about fifteen minutes later.7 that there was no reason or occasion for Anacito to wear
Barong Tagalog. Tested against the stringent criterion
At about 7:45 p.m. of the same day, prosecution witness for insanity to be exempting, such deportment of Anacito,
Tomas Bacsal, Jr., of Barangay San Pablo, Catbalogan, his occasional silence, and his acts of laughing, talking
Samar, was in the house of Demetrio Patrimonio, Sr., to himself, staring sharply, and stabbing his victims
seeking medical advice from the latter’s wife. While within a 15-minute interval are not sufficient proof that he
there, Tomas heard a commotion outside. He looked out was insane immediately before or at the time he
from the balcony and saw people running. He learned committed the crimes. Such unusual behavior may be
that Anacito had stabbed somebody. considered as mere abnormality of the mental faculties,
which will not exclude imputability.47
After about fifteen minutes, while Tomas was on his way
home, he saw Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr. He likewise Anacito’s psychiatric history likewise fails to meet
noticed Anacito hiding in a dark place. When Demetrio the stringent yardstick established by case law. What
Jr. reached the national highway, near the so-called it shows is that Anacito was prescribed thorazine and
"lover’s lane," Anacito emerged from his hiding place evadyne, and later an injectable medicine to remedy "his
and stabbed Demetrio Jr. with a knife about three to four lack of sleep and noisiness." As the trial court noted, it
times.9 was never shown that these drugs were for a mental
illness that deprived Anacito of reason. Further, Anacito
Tomas immediately ran to the house of the Demetrios to was just an out-patient at the NCMH, EVRMC, and
inform them of what he had just witnessed. He then saw Samar Provincial Hospital. While Remedios claimed that
Demetrio Jr. running towards his parents’ house, but the she requested the confinement of Anacito and that the
latter did not make it because he collapsed near the doctors did not refuse her, the fact remains that Anacito
fence. Tomas also caught sight of Anacito running was never confined in a mental institution. Although Dr.
towards the direction of the house of the Opurans. Verona testified that there was a recommendation for
Meanwhile, Demetrio Jr. was brought by his parents to Anacito’s confinement, there was no indication in the
the Samar Provincial Hospital, where he died the records as to when the recommendation was made, who
following day.10 made the recommendation, and the reason for the
recommendation.48
In its decision21 of 23 January 2001, the trial court found
Anacito guilty of murder for the death of Demetrio At any rate, in People v. Legaspi,49 we discarded the
confinement of the accused at the NCMH prior to the

97
 AB
incident in question to be by itself proof of his insanity, Other Notes:
there being no proof that he was adjudged insane by the
institute. Applying this principle to Anacito’s case, we find  In the determination of the culpability of every
another cogent reason to reject his plea of insanity. criminal actor, voluntariness is an essential element.
Without it, the imputation of criminal responsibility
The records are likewise clear that Anacito was not and the imposition of the corresponding penalty
subjected to treatment from 1991 until 1999. While cannot be legally sanctioned. The human mind is an
Remedios insisted that the medicine prescribed for entity, and understanding it is not purely an
Anacito ran out of stock allegedly in 1990, there was no intellectual process but is dependent to a large
proof that Anacito needed the medicine during that degree upon emotional and psychological
period. In fact, there was no intimation that he needed appreciation. A man’s act is presumed voluntary.23
the medicine prior to the stabbing incident. She bought It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts
medicine for Anacito only in April 2000 because he was were done unconsciously,24 for the moral and legal
"again noisy in the jail."50 It seems that it was only after presumption is that every person is presumed to be
the stabbing incident, when he was in jail, that his of sound mind,25 or that freedom and intelligence
symptoms reappeared. constitute the normal condition of a person.26 Thus,
the presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code
Moreover, as found by the trial court, the results of Dr. is that everyone is sane. This presumption, however,
Verona’s examinations on Anacito were based on may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, which
incomplete or insufficient facts.51 For one thing, she under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code
admitted to have examined Anacito for only three exempts a person from criminal liability.
sessions lasting one to two hours each.
10. Verdadero vs. People
Truly, there is nothing that can be discerned from Dr.
Verona’s short psychiatric evaluation report and her Facts: On March 12, 2009, at around 3:00 o'clock in the
testimony that Anacito’s judgment and mental faculties afternoon, Maynard Plata (Maynard) and his father
were totally impaired as to warrant a conclusion that his Romeo were at the Baggao Police Station. Together with
mental condition in 1998 when he killed his victims was Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went there to report that
the same in 2000 when he was psychiatrically examined. Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation
The most that we can conclude is that her findings refer pump.
to the period after the stabbing accident and, hence,
would prove Anacito’s mental condition only for said After a confrontation with Verdadero at the police station,
time. the three men made their way home on a tricycle but
stopped at a drugstore as Maynard intended to buy
It must be stressed that an inquiry into the mental state some baby supplies. Romeo proceeded towards a store
of an accused should relate to the period immediately near the drugstore while Ronnie stayed inside the
before or at the precise moment of the commission of tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero
the act which is the subject of the inquiry.56 His mental stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of
condition after that crucial period or during the trial is Ronnie.
inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal
liability.57 Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left side of the latter's
upper back with the use of a Rambo knife. He again
Interestingly, Anacito failed to raise insanity at the struck Romeo's upper back, just below the right
earliest opportunity. He invoked it for the first time in the shoulder. Maynard tried to help his father but Verdadero
year 2000 and only after he had already testified on his attempted to attack him as well. He defended himself
defenses of alibi and denial. It has been held that the using a small stool, which he used to hit Verdadero in
invocation of denial and alibi as defenses indicates that the chest.
the accused was in full control of his mental faculties.58
Additionally, the trial judge observed that, during the Meanwhile, Ronnie ran towards the police station to
hearings, Anacito was attentive, well-behaved, and seek assistance. The responding police officers arrested
responsive to the questions propounded to him. Thus, Verdadero, while Maynard and Ronnie brought Romeo
the shift in theory from denial and alibi to a plea of to a clinic but were advised to bring him to the Cagayan
insanity, made apparently after the appellant realized the Valley Medical Center (CVMC). Romeo, however, died
futility of his earlier defenses, is a clear indication that upon arrival at the CVMC.
insanity is a mere concoction59 or an afterthought.60 In
any event, Anacito failed to establish by convincing Evidence of the Defense
evidence his alleged insanity at the time he killed
Demetrio Jr. and Allan Dacles. He is thus presumed The evidence for the defense did not refute the material
sane, and we are constrained to affirm his conviction.61 allegations but revolved around Verdadero's alleged
insanity, to wit:
II. We likewise reject the alternative plea of Anacito
that he be credited with the mitigating Since 1999, Verdadero had been an outpatient of
circumstance of diminished willpower. CVMCs Psychiatric Department as he claimed to hear
strange voices and had difficulty in sleeping. Sometime
In the cases where we credited this mitigating in 2001, Miriam Verdadero (Miriam), Verdadero's sister,
circumstance after rejecting a plea of insanity, it was again brought him to the Psychiatric Department of
clear from the records that the accused had been CVMC after he became violent and started throwing
suffering from a chronic mental disease that affected his stones at a tricycle with a child on board. Verdadero was
intelligence and willpower for quite a number of years confined for two (2) months and was diagnosed to be
prior to the commission of the act he was being held suffering from mental depression.
for.62 The situation does not exist in the cases at bar.
sOn July 21, 2003, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia
It was only in 2000 that Anacito was diagnosed as and was given medications to address his mental illness.
"psychotic" with flight of ideas and auditory hallucinations Verdadero would irregularly consult with his doctors as
and was found to be schizophrenic. There is nothing on he had a lifelong chronic disease. Then, in 2009, he was
record that he had these symptoms the previous years again confined for the fourth (4th) time at CVMC due to a
or at the time he stabbed the victim. Curiously, Dr. relapse.
Verona did not make a diagnosis of schizophrenia in her
report, only at the witness stand.

98
 AB
On March 12, 2009, Miriam proceeded to CVMC, after you, is it also your conclusion that Solomon Verdadero
she heard of the stabbing incident. There, she saw was in relapse on March 12, 2009 due to violent
Verdadero removing the IV tubes connected to his body behavior?
and, thereafter, locked himself inside the comfort room.
Eventually, Verdadero was given sedatives and was A: Yes, sir.
transferred to an isolation room after Miriam informed the
nurses of the incident.11 Dr. Paggadu, without any reservations, stated that
Verdadero was suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia
On March 20, 2009, he was transferred to the Psychiatry at the time of the stabbing incident. In contrast, she was
Department after Dr. Leonor Andres-Juliana (Dr. Andres- hesitant to opine that Verdadero might have been in a
Juliana) had diagnosed that he was having difficulty lucid interval because of the medications taken. Thus, it
sleeping. Dr. Andres-Juliana opined that Verdadero is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the testimony
suffered a relapse, as evidenced by his violent of an expert witness, that Verdadero was of unsound
behaviour. mind at the time he stabbed Romeo.

Acting on the January 4, 2011 Order of the RTC, Dr. Further, the finding of Verdadero's insanity is supported
Ethel Maureen Pagaddu (Dr. Pagaddu) conducted a by the observations made by Maynard, a witness for the
mental examination on Verdadero. She confirmed that prosecution. In his testimony, Maynard gave his opinion
as early as 1999, he was already brought to CVMC and on Verdadero's behavior and appearance when they met
that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia on July 21, at the police station
2003. Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that
Verdadero had suffered a relapse on the day of the Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was
stabbing incident.12 his neighbor for a long time. He had observed that there
were times that Verdadero appeared to be of unsound
Issue: mind as he would sometimes become violent. On the
day of the stabbing incident, Maynard perceived that
Ruling: The Court grants the petition and acquits Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he
accused-appellant Solomon Verdadero y Galera of had reddish eyes and appeared to be drunk. Moreover,
Homicide by reason of insanity. He is ordered confined he was immediately transferred to the psychiatry
at the National Center for Mental Health for treatment department because of his impaired sleep and to control
and shall be released only upon order of the RTC acting him from harming himself and others.
on a recommendation from his attending physicians from
the institution. These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's
testimony that drinking wine, poor sleep and violent
behavior were among the symptoms of a relapse, the
Under Article 12 of the RPC, an imbecile or an insane
same testimony that was used as basis for his previous
person is exempt from criminal liability, unless the latter
diagnosis.29 The evidence on record supports the
had acted during a lucid interval. The defense of insanity
finding that Verdadero exhibited symptoms of a relapse
or imbecility must be clearly proved for there is a
of schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing incident.
presumption that the acts penalized by law are
Thus, Dr. Pagaddu reiterated Dr. Andre-Juliana's
voluntary.18
conclusion that Verdadero was having a relapse of his
illness on that fateful day.
In the case at bench, it is undisputed that (1) as early as
1999, Verdadero was brought to the Psychiatric
Other Notes:
Department of CVMC for treatment; (2) he was
diagnosed with depression in 2001; (3) he was
 In People v. Florendo, the Court explained the
diagnosed with schizophrenia on July 21, 2003; (4) he
standard in upholding insanity as an exempting
was confined in the psychiatric ward sometime in 2009
circumstance, to wit:
due to a relapse; (5) he was in and out of psychiatric
care from the time of his first confinement in 1999 until
the stabbing incident; and (6) he was diagnosed to have Insanity under Art. 12, par. 1, of The Revised Penal
suffered a relapse on March 20, 2009. Code exists when there is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, i.e., appellant is
deprived of reason; he acts without the least
Thus, it is without question that he was suffering from
discernment because of complete absence of the power
schizophrenia and the only thing left to be ascertained is
to discern; or, there is a total deprivation of freedom of
whether he should be absolved from responsibility in
the will. The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes
killing Romeo because of his mental state.
insanity as an exempting circumstance, and he must
prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
It is true that there is no direct evidence to show
Verdadero's mental state at the exact moment the crime
was committed. This, however, is not fatal to the finding  In People v. Isla, the Court elucidated that insanity
that he was insane. His insanity may still be shown by must relate to the time immediately preceding or
circumstances immediately before and after the incident. simultaneous with the commission of the offense
Further, the expert opinion of the psychiatrist Dr. with which the accused is charged. Otherwise, he
Pagaddu may also be taken into account. must be adjudged guilty for the said offense. In
short, in order for the accused to be exempted from
Atty. Tagaruma criminal liability under a plea of insanity, he must
categorically demonstrate that: (1) he was
completely deprived of intelligence because of his
Q: You have read for the record the report of Dr. Juliana
mental condition or illness; and (2) such complete
on the alleged violent behavior of Solomon Verdadero on
deprivation of intelligence must be manifest at the
March 12, 2009 which is the date of the incident, as an
time or immediately before the commission of the
expert psychiatrist is it possible that the violent behavior
offense.
of Solomon Verdadero on March 12, 2009 was the basis
of Dr. Juliana in diagnosing that the accused was in
11. People vs. Genosa
relapse upon admission on March 12, 2009?
Facts:
A: Yes sir.
Version of the Prosecution
Q: Following the remark of scientific conclusion of Dr.
Juliana, Dr. Janet Taguinod and the conclusion made by
99
 AB
Appellant (Marivic Genosa) and Ben Genosa were "About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben,
united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. because of its stench, had to be taken outside at the
Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their back of the house before the postmortem examination
house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Ben's younger was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the
brother, Alex, and his wife lived with them too. Sometime police. A municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte
in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from Steban responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo found that
Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte Ben had been dead for two to three days and his body
where they lived with their two children, namely: John was already decomposing. The postmortem examination
Marben and Earl Pierre. of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the
Information for parricide later filed against appellant. She
"On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went concluded that the cause of Ben's death was
to a cockfight after receiving their salary. They each had 'cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial
two (2) bottles of beer before heading home. Arturo hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the occipital
would pass Ben's house before reaching his. When they [bone].'
arrived at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant
had gone to Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went "Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going
inside his house, while Arturo went to a store across it, home after work on November 15, 1995, she got worried
waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner to that her husband who was not home yet might have
place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin
way home passing the side of the Genosas' rented Ecel Araño, appellant went to look for Ben at the
house, he heard her say 'I won't hesitate to kill you' to marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find
which Ben replied 'Why kill me when I am innocent?' him there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at the
That was the last time Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also Genosas' house. Ecel went home despite appellant's
noticed that since then, the Genosas' rented house request for her to sleep in their house.
appeared uninhabited and was always closed.
"Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following
"On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda him, even challenging her to a fight. She allegedly
Paderog, her close friend and neighbor living about fifty ignored him and instead attended to their children who
(50) meters from her house, to look after her pig were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed
because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy check- with her reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the
up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or
motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who wire to keep her from watching television. According to
unfortunately had no money to buy it. appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the
bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her
"That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed for
Valida was waiting for a bus going to Ormoc when he help. Ben left. At this point, appellant packed his clothes
saw appellant going out of their house with her two kids because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed
in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the gate and clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew into a
taking her children to the waiting area where he was. rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards
Joseph lived about fifty (50) meters behind the Genosas' a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her 'You
rented house. Joseph, appellant and her children rode might as well be killed so nobody would nag me.'
the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a
Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him. gun inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key
to it, he got a three-inch long blade cutter from his wallet.
"On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga She however, 'smashed' the arm of Ben with a pipe,
told him about the foul odor emanating from his house causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant
being rented by Ben and appellant. Steban went there to then 'smashed' Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was
find out the cause of the stench but the house was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter
locked from the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate ran inside the bedroom.
key with him, Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a
borrowed steel saw. He was able to get inside through "Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of
the kitchen door but only after destroying a window to her husband by shooting him. She supposedly 'distorted'
reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not
the unlocked bedroom where the offensive smell was die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom."7 (Citations
coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben omitted)
lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He
was only in his briefs with injuries at the back of his Version of the Defense
head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and
sent word to the mother of Ben about his son's Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the
mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] "1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on
son. November 19, 1983. Prior to her marriage, Marivic had
graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a
"Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo degree of Bachelor of Science in Business
Acodesin, then assigned at the police station at Isabel, Administration, and was working, at the time of her
Leyte, received a report regarding the foul smell at the husband's death, as a Secretary to the Port Managers in
Genosas' rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, Ormoc City. The couple had three (3) children: John
SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca.
proceeded to the house and went inside the bedroom
where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his side "2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since
wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the nape elementary school; they were neighbors in Bilwang; they
of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found were classmates; and they were third degree cousins.
in one corner at the side of an aparador a metal pipe Both sets of parents were against their relationship, but
about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning Ben was persistent and tried to stop other suitors from
against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet courting her. Their closeness developed as he was her
and six (6) inches long with a diameter of one and half (1 constant partner at fiestas.
1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with
a red stain at one end. The bedroom was not in disarray. "3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of
Ben's parents, together with Ben's brother, Alex, in

100
 AB
Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic and "These incidents happened several times and she would
Ben 'lived happily'. But apparently, soon thereafter, the often run home to her parents, but Ben would follow her
couple would quarrel often and their fights would and seek her out, promising to change and would ask for
become violent. her forgiveness. She said after she would be beaten, she
would seek medical help from Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero
"4. Ben's brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that and Dra. Cerillo. These doctors would enter the injuries
he could not remember when Ben and Marivic married. inflicted upon her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said
He said that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally Ben would beat her or quarrel with her every time he
when Ben would come home drunk, Marivic would inflict was drunk, at least three times a week.
injuries on him. He said that in one incident in 1993 he
saw Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had "7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely
shouted for help as his left hand was covered with blood. related to Marivic, testified as to the abuse and violence
Marivic left the house but after a week, she returned she received at the hands of Ben.
apparently having asked for Ben's forgiveness. In
another incident in May 22, 1994, early morning, Alex '7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a
and his father apparently rushed to Ben's aid again and [neighbor] of the Genosas, testified that on November
saw blood from Ben's forehead and Marivic holding an 15, 1995, he overheard a quarrel between Ben and
empty bottle. Ben and Marivic reconciled after Marivic Marivic. Marivic was shouting for help and through the
had apparently again asked for Ben's forgiveness. open jalousies, he saw the spouses 'grappling with each
other'. Ben had Marivic in a choke hold. He did not do
"Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivic's mother-in-law, anything, but had come voluntarily to testify. (Please
testified too, saying that Ben and Marivic married in note this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo
'1986 or 1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc City.' Busabos.8 )
She said as the marriage went along, Marivic became
'already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada Genosa said '7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the
that after the birth of Marivic's two sons, there were brother of Mr. Joe Barrientos, testified that he heard his
'three (3) misunderstandings.' The first was when Marivic neighbor Marivic shouting on the night of November 15,
stabbed Ben with a table knife through his left arm; the 1995. He peeped through the window of his hut which is
second incident was on November 15, 1994, when located beside the Genosa house and saw 'the spouses
Marivic struck Ben on the forehead 'using a sharp grappling with each other then Ben Genosa was holding
instrument until the eye was also affected. It was with his both hands the neck of the accused, Marivic
wounded and also the ear' and her husband went to Ben Genosa'. He said after a while, Marivic was able to
to help; and the third incident was in 1995 when the extricate he[r]self and enter the room of the children.
couple had already transferred to the house in Bilwang After that, he went back to work as he was to go fishing
and she saw that Ben's hand was plastered as 'the bone that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next morning.
cracked.' (Again, please note that this was the same night as that
testified to by Arturo Basobas).
"Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a
Pasar clinic for medical intervention. '7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the
Genosas while they were living in Isabel, Leyte. His
"5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on house was located about fifty (50) meters from theirs.
November 15, 1995 'After we collected our salary, we Marivic is his niece and he knew them to be living
went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO.' They stayed together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple was
there for three (3) hours, after which they went to always quarreling. Marivic confided in him that Ben
'Uniloks' and drank beer – allegedly only two (2) bottles would pawn items and then would use the money to
each. After drinking they bought barbeque and went to gamble. One time, he went to their house and they were
the Genosa residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be pacified 'if
a while talking with Ben, after which he went across the somebody would come.' He testified that while Ben was
road to wait 'for the runner and the usher of the masiao alive 'he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he
game because during that time, the hearing on masiao would go to our house and he will say, 'Teody' because
numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers and that was what he used to call me, 'mokimas ta,' which
runners so that I can place my bet.' On his way home at means 'let's go and look for a whore.' Mr. Sarabia further
about 9:00 in the evening, he heard the Genosas testified that Ben 'would box his wife and I would see
arguing. They were quarreling loudly. Outside their bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed a wound
house was one 'Fredo' who is used by Ben to feed his (the witness pointed to his right breast) as according to
fighting cocks. Basobas' testimony on the root of the her a knife was stricken to her.' Mr. Sarabia also said
quarrel, conveniently overheard by him was Marivic that once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said he
saying 'I will never hesitate to kill you', whilst Ben replied voluntarily testified only that morning.
'Why kill me when I am innocent.' Basobas thought they
were joking. '7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a
cousin of Marivic, testified that in the afternoon of
"He did not hear them quarreling while he was across November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her house and
the road from the Genosa residence. Basobas admitted asked her help to look for Ben. They searched in the
that he and Ben were always at the cockpits every market place, several taverns and some other places,
Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he once told Ben but could not find him. She accompanied Marivic home.
'before when he was stricken with a bottle by Marivic Marivic wanted her to sleep with her in the Genosa
Genosa' that he should leave her and that Ben would house 'because she might be battered by her husband.'
always take her back after she would leave him 'so many When they got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the
times'. evening, Miss Arano said that 'her husband was already
there and was drunk.' Miss Arano knew he was drunk
"Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, 'because of his staggering walking and I can also detect
but it was a long time that they had been quarreling. He his face.' Marivic entered the house and she heard them
said Ben 'even had a wound' on the right forehead. He quarrel noisily. (Again, please note that this is the same
had known the couple for only one (1) year. night as that testified to by Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano
testified that this was not the first time Marivic had asked
"6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, her to sleep in the house as Marivic would be afraid
Ben became cruel to her and was a habitual drinker. She every time her husband would come home drunk. At one
said he provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he time when she did sleep over, she was awakened at
would pin her down on the bed, and sometimes beat her. 10:00 in the evening when Ben arrived because the
couple 'were very noisy in the sala and I had heard
101
 AB
something was broken like a vase.' She said Marivic ran happened to the pipe she used to 'smash him once'; that
into her room and they locked the door. When Ben she was wounded by Ben on her wrist with the bolo; and
couldn't get in he got a chair and a knife and 'showed us that two (2) hours after she was 'whirled' by Ben, he
the knife through the window grill and he scared us.' She kicked her 'ass' and dragged her towards the drawer
said that Marivic shouted for help, but no one came. On when he saw that she had packed his things.'
cross-examination, she said that when she left Marivic's
house on November 15, 1995, the couple were still "9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November
quarreling. 18, 1995 after an investigation was made of the foul odor
emitting from the Genosa residence. This fact was
'7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and testified to by all the prosecution witnesses and some
Marivic were co-employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. defense witnesses during the trial.
Marivic was his patient 'many times' and had also
received treatment from other doctors. Dr. Caing testified "10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the
that from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995, there Municipal Health Officer of Isabel, Leyte at the time of
were six (6) episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon the incident, and among her responsibilities as such was
Marivic. These injuries were reported in his Out-Patient to take charge of all medico-legal cases, such as the
Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The prosecution examination of cadavers and the autopsy of cadavers.
admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic pathologist. She merely took
him an expert witness.' the medical board exams and passed in 1986. She was
called by the police to go to the Genosa residence and
xxx xxx xxx when she got there, she saw 'some police officer and
neighbor around.' She saw Ben Genosa, covered by a
'Dr. Caing's clinical history of the tension headache and blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his back to
hypertention of Marivic on twenty-three (23) separate the door. He was wearing only a brief.
occasions was marked at Exhibits '2' and '2-B.' The OPD
Chart of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic which reflected all  In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel
the consultations made by Marivic and the six (6) theory of the battered woman syndrome. While new
incidents of physical injuries reported was marked as in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been
Exhibit '3.' recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-
defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.23
"On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a By appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant
psychiatrist, he could not say whether the injuries were is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey
directly related to the crime committed. He said it is only their "understanding of the justifiably fearful state of
a psychiatrist who is qualified to examine the mind of a person who has been cyclically abused
psychological make-up of the patient, 'whether she is and controlled over a period of time."24
capable of committing a crime or not.'
Issue:
'7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place
where the Genosas resided, testified that about two (2) Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s conviction
months before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past of Marivic Genosa.
8:00 in the evening. She sought his help to settle or
confront the Genosa couple who were experiencing Battered Woman Syndrome (Explained)
'family troubles'. He told Marivic to return in the morning,
but he did not hear from her again and assumed 'that A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is
they might have settled with each other or they might repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or
have forgiven with each other.' psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her
to do something he wants her to do without concern for
xxx xxx xxx her rights. Battered women include wives or women in
any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore,
"Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple
got home that night it was her husband who began the must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a
husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in
she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, Marivic had to the situation, she is defined as a battered woman."25
be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was
suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such
was born prematurely on December 1, 1995. as low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home,
the family and the female sex role; emotional
"Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to
to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false
would always follow her and they would reconcile. hopes that the relationship will improve.26
Marivic said that the reason why Ben was violent and
abusive towards her that night was because 'he was More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is
crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu x x x Rubillos.' characterized by the so-called "cycle of violence,"27
which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase;
"On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil,
with a gun; she said that he died in the bedroom; that loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.28
their quarrels could be heard by anyone passing their
house; that Basobas lied in his testimony; that she left During the tension-building phase, minor battering
for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995; that she did occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or
not bother anyone in Manila, rented herself a room, and another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually
got herself a job as a field researcher under the alias tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind,
'Marvelous Isidro'; she did not tell anyone that she was nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way.
leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of What actually happens is that she allows herself to be
her baby; and that she was arrested in San Pablo, abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All
Laguna. she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence
exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to
'Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that be double-edged, because her "placatory" and passive
she threw the gun away; that she did not know what

102
 AB
behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to came running into Ecel's room and locked the door. Ben
abuse her in the first place. showed up by the window grill atop a chair, scaring them
with a knife.
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her
effort to placate him are not usually successful, and the On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again
verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner asked her help -- this time to find Ben -- but they were
senses the imminent loss of control and the growing unable to. They returned to the Genosa home, where
tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent they found him already drunk. Again, afraid that he might
stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their house.
But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the Seeing his state of drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and
more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and when she heard the couple start arguing, she decided to
abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence leave.
"spirals out of control" and leads to an acute battering
incident.29 On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben
Genosa, at least three other witnesses saw or heard the
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized couple quarreling.
by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The
battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, Ruling on the existence of BWS
yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no
control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records
Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its for specific evidence establishing that appellant, due to
explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The the repeated abuse she had suffered from her spouse
battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason over a long period of time, became afflicted with the
with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find
condition. sufficient evidence that would support such a conclusion.
More specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the would confirm the presence of the essential
attack and the terrible pain, although she may later characteristics of BWS.
clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in
the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the
batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and "cycle of violence" supposedly characterizing the
she knows from her past painful experience that it is relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there
futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court a
very savage and out of control, such that innocent quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben
bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.30 started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building
phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate
The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However,
acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, that single incident does not prove the existence of the
the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, syndrome. In other words, she failed to prove that in at
the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior least another battering episode in the past, she had gone
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously through a similar pattern.
cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard
the other hand, the battered woman also tries to to the third phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned
convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that she would usually run away to her mother's or
that her partner will change for the better; and that this father's house;58 that Ben would seek her out, ask for
"good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom her forgiveness and promise to change; and that
she loves. believing his words, she would return to their common
abode.
History of Abuse
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself
According to Marivic Genosa: her factual experiences and thoughts that would clearly
and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of the
In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the syndrome.
subsequent year he was cruel to me and a behavior of
habitual drinker. He always provoke me in everything, he BWS as Self-Defense
always slap me and sometimes he pinned me down on
the bed and sometimes beat me. (This happened We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not
several times) continuous, does not warrant self-defense.67 In the
absence of such aggression, there can be no self-
Referring to his "Out-Patient Chart"33 on Marivic defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the
Genosa at the Philphos Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing victim.68 Thus, Marivic's killing of Ben was not
bolstered her foregoing testimony on chronic battery in completely justified under the circumstances.
this manner:
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of
neighbor of the Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still
he had seen the couple quarreling several times; and be considered in the context of self-defense.59
that on some occasions Marivic would run to him with
bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon her From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court
by Ben.35 reckons further that crucial to the BWS defense is the
state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the
Ecel Arano also testified36 that for a number of times offense60 -- she must have actually feared imminent
she had been asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need
house, because the latter feared that Ben would come to kill him in order to save her life.
home drunk and hurt her. On one occasion that Ecel did
sleep over, she was awakened about ten o'clock at Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the
night, because the couple "were very noisy … and I one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat
heard something was broken like a vase." Then Marivic on one's life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be

103
 AB
imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.61 Thus, the finding none, he approached a cousin of his named
Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites Romualdo Cocal, to ask the latter to lend him his knife.
and effect of self-defense:62 Epifanio Rarang, who had heard what the accused had
been asking his cousin, told the latter not to give the
"Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not accused his knife because he might attack Juan Ragojos
incur any criminal liability: with it. The accused, however, succeeded in taking
possession of the knife which was in a pocket of his
"1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, cousin's pants. Once in possession of the knife, Valentin
provided that the following circumstances concur; Doqueña approached Juan Ragojos and challenged the
latter to give him another blow with his fist, to which the
First. Unlawful aggression; deceased answered that he did not want to do so
because he (Juan Ragojos) was bigger that the accused.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed Juan Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the accused,
to prevent or repel it; continued playing and, while he was thus unprepared
and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife which he
person defending himself." carried.

Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of  The court, after trying the case, held that the
self-defense.63 It presupposes actual, sudden and accused acted with discernment in committing the
unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on act imputed to him and, proceeding in accordance
the life or safety of a person.64 In the present case, with the provisions of article 80 of the Revised Penal
however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 99,
there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful ordered him to be sent to the Training School for
aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She Boys to remain therein until he reaches the age of
had already been able to withdraw from his violent majority. From this order the accused interposed an
behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During appeal alleging that the court erred in holding that he
that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to had acted with discernment and in not having
bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he dismissal the case.
posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a
position that presented an actual threat on her life or Issue:
safety.
Ruling: The proven facts, as stated by the lower court in
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out the appealed order, convinces us that the appeal taken
of their children's bedroom -- and based on past violent from said order is absolutely unfounded, because it is
incidents, there was a great probability that he would still error to determine discernment by the means resorted to
have pursued her and inflicted graver harm -- then, the by the attorney for the defense, as discussed by him in
imminence of the real threat upon her life would not have his brief.
ceased yet. Where the brutalized person is already
suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical The discernment that constitutes an exception to the
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen
of domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. years of age but over nine, who commits an act
To require the battered person to await an obvious, prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
deadly attack before she can defend her life "would the difference between right and wrong, and such
amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.'"65 capacity may be known and should be determined by
Still, impending danger (based on the conduct of the taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the afforded by the records in each case, the very
defendant's use of deadly force must be shown. appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and
Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the
required imminence of danger.66 Considering such commission of the act, but also after and even during the
circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense trial (U.S. vs. Maralit, 36 Phil., 155). This was done by
may be appreciated. the trial court, and the conclusion arrived at by it is
correct.
12. People vs. Doquena
13. Ortega vs. People
Facts: On the date of the crime, the appellant was
exactly thirteen years, nine months and five days old. Facts: Version of the Prosecution
The incident that gave rise to the aggression committed
by him on the deceased is narrated in the appealed On February 27, 1990, AAA was born to spouses FFF
order as follows: and MMM.10 Among her siblings CCC, BBB, DDD, EEE
and GGG, AAA is the only girl in the family. Before these
Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of November disturbing events, AAA's family members were close
19, 1938, the now deceased Juan Ragojos and one friends of petitioner's family, aside from the fact that they
Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the were good neighbors. However, BBB caught petitioner
intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Province raping his younger sister AAA inside their own home.
of Pangasinan. The herein accused, who was also in BBB then informed their mother MMM who in turn asked
said yard, intervened and, catching the ball, tossed it at AAA.11 There, AAA confessed that petitioner raped her
Juan Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach. For this act of three (3) times on three (3) different occasions.
the accused, Juan Ragojos chased him around the yard
and, upon overtaking him, slapped him on the nape. The first occasion happened sometime in August 1996.
Said accused then turned against the deceased MMM left her daughter AAA, then 6 years old and son
assuming a threatening attitude, for which the reason BBB, then 10 years old, in the care of Luzviminda
said deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist, Ortega12 (Luzviminda), mother of petitioner, for two (2)
returning immediately to the place where Epifanio nights because MMM had to stay in a hospital to attend
Rarang was in order to continue playing with him. The to her other son who was sick.13 During the first night at
accused, offended by what he considered an abuse on petitioner's residence, petitioner entered the room where
the part of Juan Ragojos, who was taller and more AAA slept together with Luzviminda and her daughter.
robust than he, looked around the yard for a stone with Petitioner woke AAA up and led her to the sala. There
which to attack the now deceased Juan Ragojos, but petitioner raped AAA. The second occasion occurred the

104
 AB
following day, again at the petitioner's residence. infuriated and confrontations occurred. At this instance,
Observing that nobody was around, petitioner brought AAA's parents went to the National Bureau of
AAA to their comfort room and raped her there. AAA Investigation (NBI) which assisted them in filing the three
testified that petitioner inserted his penis into her vagina (3) counts of rape. However, the prosecutor's office only
and she felt pain. In all of these instances, petitioner filed the two (2) instant cases.
warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he would
spank her.14 AAA did not tell her parents about her Version of the Defense
ordeal.
Petitioner was born on August 8, 1983 to spouses Loreto
The third and last occasion happened in the evening of (Loreto) and Luzviminda Ortega.24 He is the second
December 1, 1996. Petitioner went to the house of AAA child of three siblings ― an elder brother and a younger
and joined her and her siblings in watching a battery- sister. Petitioner denied the accusations made against
powered television. At that time, Luzviminda was him. He testified that: his parents and AAA's parents
conversing with MMM. While AAA's siblings were busy were good friends; when MMM left AAA and her brothers
watching, petitioner called AAA to come to the room of to the care of his mother, petitioner slept in a separate
CCC and BBB. AAA obeyed. While inside the said room room together with BBB and CCC while AAA slept
which was lighted by a kerosene lamp, petitioner pulled together with Luzviminda and his younger sister; he
AAA behind the door, removed his pants and brief, never touched or raped AAA or showed his private parts
removed AAA's shorts and panty, and in a standing to her; petitioner did not threaten AAA in any instance;
position inserted his penis into the vagina of AAA.15 he did not rape AAA in the former's comfort room, but he
AAA described petitioner's penis as about five (5) inches merely accompanied and helped AAA clean up as she
long and the size of two (2) ballpens. She, likewise, defecated and feared the toilet bowl; in the process of
narrated that she saw pubic hair on the base of his washing, he may have accidentally touched AAA's anus;
penis.16 on December 1, 1996, petitioner together with his
parents, went to AAA's house;25 they were dancing and
This last incident was corroborated by BBB in his playing together with all the other children at the time;
testimony. When BBB was about to drink water in their while they were dancing, petitioner hugged and lifted
kitchen, as he was passing by his room, BBB was AAA up in a playful act, at the instance of which BBB ran
shocked to see petitioner and AAA both naked from their and reported the matter to MMM, who at the time was
waist down in the act of sexual intercourse. BBB saw with Luzviminda, saying that petitioner and AAA were
petitioner holding AAA and making a pumping motion. having sexual intercourse;26 petitioner explained to
Immediately, BBB told petitioner to stop; the latter, in MMM that they were only playing, and that he could not
turn, hurriedly left. Thereafter, BBB reported the incident have done to AAA what he was accused of doing, as
to his mother, MMM.17 they were together with her brothers, and he treated
AAA like a younger sister;27 BBB was lying; AAA's
MMM testified that when she asked AAA about what parents and his parents did not get angry at him nor did
BBB saw, AAA told her that petitioner inserted his fingers they quarrel with each other; petitioner and his parents
and his penis into her vagina. MMM learned that this was peacefully left AAA's house at about nine o'clock in the
not the only incident that petitioner molested AAA as evening; however, at about four o'clock in the morning,
there were two previous occasions. MMM also learned petitioner and his parents were summoned by MMM to
that AAA did not report her ordeal to them out of fear that go to the latter's house; upon arriving there they saw
petitioner would spank her. MMM testified that when BBB being maltreated by his father as AAA pointed to
BBB reported the matter to her, petitioner and BBB as the one who molested her; and MMM and
Luzviminda already left her house. After waiting for Luzviminda agreed to bring AAA to a doctor for
AAA's brothers to go to sleep, MMM, with a heavy heart, examination.28
examined AAA's vagina and she noticed that the same
was reddish and a whitish fluid was coming out from it. Luzviminda corroborated the testimony of her son. She
Spouses FFF and MMM were not able to sleep that testified that: her son was a minor at the time of the
night. The following morning, at about four o'clock, MMM incident; CCC and BBB were the children of MMM in her
called Luzviminda and petitioner to come to their house. first marriage, while AAA and the rest of her siblings
MMM confronted Luzviminda about what petitioner did to were of the second marriage; CCC and BBB are half-
her daughter, and consequently, she demanded that brothers of AAA; when MMM entrusted AAA and her
AAA should be brought to a doctor for examination.18 brothers to her sometime in August of 1996, she slept
with AAA and her youngest daughter in a separate room
MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to Dr. from petitioner; on December 1, 1996, she was at AAA's
Lucifree Katalbas19 (Dr. Katalbas), the Rural Health house watching television and conversing with MMM,
Officer of the locality who examined AAA and found no while FFF and Loreto were having a drinking spree in the
indication that she was molested.20 Refusing to accept kitchen; from where they were seated, she could clearly
such findings, on December 12, 1996, MMM went to Dr. see all the children, including petitioner and AAA, playing
Joy Ann Jocson (Dr. Jocson), Medical Officer IV of the and dancing in the dining area; she did not hear any
Bacolod City Health Office. Dr. Jocson made an unusual cry or noise at the time; while they were
unofficial written report21 showing that there were conversing, BBB came to MMM saying that petitioner
"abrasions on both right and left of the labia minora and and AAA were having sexual intercourse; upon hearing
a small laceration at the posterior fourchette." She also such statement, Luzviminda and MMM immediately
found that the minor injuries she saw on AAA's genitals stood up and looked for them, but both mothers did not
were relatively fresh; and that such abrasions were find anything unusual as all the children were playing
superficial and could disappear after a period of 3 to 4 and dancing in the dining area; Luzviminda and MMM
days. Dr. Jocson, however, indicated in her certification just laughed at BBB's statement; the parents of AAA, at
that her findings required the confirmation of the that time, did not examine her in order to verify BBB's
Municipal Health Officer of the locality. statement nor did they get angry at petitioner or at them;
and they peacefully left AAA's house. However, the
Subsequently, an amicable settlement22 was reached following day, MMM woke Luzviminda up, saying that
between the two families through the DAWN Foundation, FFF was spanking BBB with a belt as AAA was pointing
an organization that helps abused women and children. to BBB nor to petitioner as the one who molested her. At
Part of the settlement required petitioner to depart from this instance, Luzviminda intervened, telling FFF not to
their house to avoid contact with AAA.23 As such, spank BBB but instead, to bring AAA to a doctor for
petitioner stayed with a certain priest in the locality. examination. Luzviminda accompanied MMM to Dr.
However, a few months later, petitioner went home for Katalbas who found no indication that AAA was
brief visits and in order to bring his dirty clothes for molested. She also accompanied her to Dr. Jocson.
laundry. At the sight of petitioner, AAA's father FFF was After getting the results of the examination conducted by
105
 AB
Dr. Jocson, they went to the police and at this instance Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative
only did Luzviminda learn that MMM accused petitioner that this Court accord retroactive application to the
of raping AAA. Petitioner vehemently denied to aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the
Luzviminda that he raped AAA. Thereafter, MMM and well-entrenched principle in criminal law - favorabilia sunt
Luzviminda went to their employer who recommended amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are
that they should seek advice from the Women's Center. favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.53
At the said Center, both agreed on an amicable This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised
settlement wherein petitioner would stay away from AAA. Penal Code.
Thus, petitioner stayed with a certain priest in the locality
for almost two (2) years. But almost every Saturday, We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle has
petitioner would come home to visit his parents and to been given expanded application in certain instances
bring his dirty clothes for laundry. Every time petitioner involving special laws.54 R.A. No. 9344 should be no
came home, FFF bad-mouthed petitioner, calling him a exception.
rapist. Confrontations occurred until an altercation
erupted wherein FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda. Deliberations on the Bill of the Senate
Subsequently, AAA's parents filed the instant cases.
When we speak here of children who do not have
Issue: Whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 criminal liability under this law, we are referring here to
apply to petitioner's case, considering that at the time he those who currently have criminal liability, but because of
committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 years old. the retroactive effect of this measure, will now be
exempt.
Ruling: In sum, we are convinced that petitioner
committed the crime of rape against AAA. The moment this law becomes effective, all those
children in conflict with the law, who were convicted in
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,37 or the the present Penal Code, for example, who will now not
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted be subject to incarceration under this law, will be
into law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect on May 20, immediately released.
2006.38 The law establishes a comprehensive system to
manage children in conflict with the law39 (CICL) and We do have a provision under the Transitory Provisions
children at risk40 with child-appropriate procedures and wherein we address the issue raised by the good
comprehensive programs and services such as Senator, specifically, Section 67. For example, "Upon
prevention, intervention, diversion, rehabilitation, re- effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years
integration and after-care programs geared towards their old and below at the time of the commission of the crime
development. In order to ensure its implementation, the shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be
law, particularly Section 841 thereof, has created the referred to the appropriate local social welfare and
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) and vested development officer." So that would be giving retroactive
it with certain duties and functions42 such as the effect.
formulation of policies and strategies to prevent juvenile
delinquency and to enhance the administration of 14. People vs. Mantalaba
juvenile justice as well as the treatment and rehabilitation
of the CICL. The law also provides for the immediate Facts: The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency
dismissal of cases of CICL, specifically Sections 64, 65, Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report
66, 67 and 68 of R.A. No. 9344's Transitory from an informer that a certain Allen Mantalaba, who
Provisions.43 was seventeen (17) years old at the time, was selling
shabu at Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Butuan
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly City. Thus, a buy-bust team was organized, composed of
provides: PO1 Randy Pajo, PO1 Eric Simon and two (2) poseur-
buyers who were provided with two (2) pieces of ₱100
SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — marked bills to be used in the purchase.
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from Around 7 o'clock in the evening of October 1, 2003, the
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to team, armed with the marked money, proceeded to
an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Butuan City for the
Act. buy-bust operation. The two poseur-buyers approached
Allen who was sitting at a corner and said to be in the act
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) of selling shabu. PO1 Pajo saw the poseur-buyers and
years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal appellant talking to each other. Afterwards, the appellant
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, handed a sachet of shabu to one of the poseur-buyers
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which and the latter gave the marked money to the appellant.
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate The poseur-buyers went back to the police officers and
proceedings in accordance with this Act. told them that the transaction has been completed.
Police officers Pajo and Simon rushed to the place and
The exemption from criminal liability herein established handcuffed the appellant as he was leaving the place.
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforced in accordance with existing laws. The police officers, still in the area of operation and in
the presence of barangay officials Richard S. Tandoy
Likewise, Section 64 of the law categorically provides and Gresilda B. Tumala, searched the appellant and
that cases of children 15 years old and below, at the time found a big sachet of shabu. PO1 Simon also pointed to
of the commission of the crime, shall immediately be the barangay officials the marked money, two pieces of
dismissed and the child shall be referred to the ₱100 bill, thrown by the appellant on the ground.
appropriate local social welfare and development officer
(LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore, with respect to After the operation, and in the presence of the same
the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not barangay officials, the police officers made an inventory
the CICL's age at the time of the promulgation of of the items recovered from the appellant which are: (1)
judgment but the CICL's age at the time of the one big sachet of shabu which they marked as RMP-1-
commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 10-01-03; (2) one small sachet of shabu which they
9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised marked as RMP 2-10-01-03; and (3) two (2) pieces of
from 9 to 15 years old.52 one hundred pesos marked money and a fifty peso (₱50)
bill. Thereafter, a letter-request was prepared by

106
 AB
Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo for the laboratory However, this Court has already ruled in People v.
examination of the two (2) sachets containing a Sarcia33 that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that
crystalline substance, ultra-violet examination on the suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the
person of the appellant as well as the two (2) pieces of child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18)
one hundred pesos marked money. The request was years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
brought by PO1 Pajo and personally received by Police of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said
Inspector Virginia Sison-Gucor, Forensic Chemical suspension of sentence until the child reaches the
Officer of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office XII maximum age of 21. The provision states:
Butuan City, who immediately conducted the
examination. The laboratory examination revealed that SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to
the appellant tested positive for the presence of bright Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the
orange ultra-violet fluorescent powder; and the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict
crystalline substance contained in two sachets, with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
separately marked as RMP-1-10-01-03 and RMP-2-10- conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
01-03, were positively identified as methamphetamine condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program,
hydrochloride. the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before
the court for execution of judgment.
Thereafter, two separate Informations were filed before
the RTC of Butuan City against appellant for violation of If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen
Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
Issue: accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence,
or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain
Ruling: specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
age of twenty-one (21) years.
I. Anent the age of the appellant when he was
arrested, this Court finds it appropriate to Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of
discuss the effect of his minority in his twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the
suspension of sentence. The appellant was provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his
seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust suspension of sentence, because such is already moot
operation took place or when the said offense and academic. It is highly noted that this would not have
was committed, but was no longer a minor at the happened if the CA, when this case was under its
time of the promulgation of the RTC's Decision. jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of the appellant.
The records show that the appellant filed his notice of
RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC appeal at the age of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344
promulgated its decision on this case on September 14, became effective in 2006, appellant was 20 years old,
2005, when said appellant was no longer a minor. The and the case having been elevated to the CA, the latter
RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with should have suspended the sentence of the appellant
Article 192 of P.D. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare because he was already entitled to the provisions of
Code31 and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law,32 the laws suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the
that were applicable at the time of the promulgation of penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article
judgment, because the imposable penalty for violation of 192 of P.D. 603.
Section 5 of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death.
II. Nevertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to
It may be argued that the appellant should have been appropriate disposition under Section 51 of RA
entitled to a suspension of his sentence under Sections No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of
38 and 68 of RA 9344 which provide for its retroactive convicted children as follows:
application, thus:
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child
child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
any civil liability which may have resulted from the agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be
offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the established, maintained, supervised and controlled by
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, that suspension In finding the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the
of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, the RTC
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated
the pronouncement of his/her guilt. in Section 9836 of the same law. A violation of Section 5
of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the death; however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where
various circumstances of the child, the court shall the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable
impose the appropriate disposition measures as by life imprisonment to death provided in the same law
provided in the Supreme Court [Rule] on Juveniles in shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this
Conflict with the Law. means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has
adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties
xxxx provided for in the Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that
and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of should be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA,
this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
years at the time of the commission of the offense for considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying
which they were convicted and are serving sentence, the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one
shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion
this Act. x x x temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also
107
 AB
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the the operation of the imposed curfews, i.e., exemption of
minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next working students or students with evening class, they
lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum contend that the lists of exemptions do not cover the
penalty shall be taken from the medium period of range and breadth of legitimate activities or reasons as
reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating to why minors would be out at night, and, hence,
circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. The ISLAW proscribe or impair the legitimate activities of minors
is applicable in the present case because the penalty during curfew hours.15
which has been originally an indivisible penalty
(reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is Petitioners likewise proffer that the Curfew Ordinances:
inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion (a) are unconstitutional as they deprive minors of the
temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged right to liberty and the right to travel without substantive
mitigating circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty due process;16 and (b) fail to pass the strict scrutiny
of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as test, for not being narrowly tailored and for employing
minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and means that bear no reasonable relation to their
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would purpose.17 They argue that the prohibition of minors on
be the proper imposable penalty. streets during curfew hours will not per se protect and
promote the social and moral welfare of children of the
15. Samahan Ng Mga Progresibong Kabataan vs. community.18
Quezon City
Furthermore, petitioners claim that the Manila
Facts: Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Ordinance, particularly Section 4 thereof, contravenes
Roa Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended, given that the
minors, several local governments in Metro Manila cited curfew provision imposes on minors the penalties
started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on of imprisonment, reprimand, and admonition. They
minors through police operations which were publicly contend that the imposition of penalties contravenes RA
known as part of "Oplan Rody."3 9344's express command that no penalty shall be
imposed on minors for curfew violations.
Among those local governments that implemented
curfew ordinances were respondents: (a) Navotas City, Lastly, petitioners submit that there is no compelling
through Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 99- 02,4 dated State interest to impose curfews contrary to the parents'
August 26, 1999, entitled "Nagtatakdang 'Curfew' ng prerogative to impose them in the exercise of their
mga Kabataan na Wala Pang Labing Walong (18) Taong natural and primary right in the rearing of the youth, and
Gulang sa Bayan ng Navotas, Kalakhang Maynila," as that even if a compelling interest exists, less restrictive
amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 2002-13,5 means are available to achieve the same.
dated June 6, 2002 (Navotas Ordinance); (b) City of
Manila, through Ordinance No. 80466 entitled "An Issue:
Ordinance Declaring the Hours from 10:00 P.M. to 4:00
A.M. of the Following Day as 'Barangay Curfew Hours' Ruling: The Court has determined that the Manila
for Children and Youths Below Eighteen (18) Years of Ordinance's penal provisions imposing reprimand and
Age; Prescribing Penalties Therefor; and for Other fines/imprisonment on minors’ conflict with Section 57-A
Purposes" dated October 14, 2002 (Manila Ordinance); of RA 9344, as amended. Hence, following the rule that
and (c) Quezon City, through Ordinance No. SP- 2301,7 ordinances.
Series of 2014, entitled "An Ordinance Setting for a [sic]
Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for Minors from 10:00 Pertinently, Sections 57 and 57-A of RA 9344, as
P.M. to 5:00 A.M., Providing Penalties for amended, prohibit the imposition of penalties on minors
Parent/Guardian, for Violation Thereof and for Other for status offenses such as curfew violations, viz.:
Purposes" dated July 31, 2014 (Quezon City Ordinance;
collectively, Curfew Ordinances).8 SEC. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not considered
an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall
Petitioners,9 spearheaded by the Samahan ng mga not be considered an offense and shall not be punished
Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) - an association of if committed by a child.
young adults and minors that aims to forward a free and
just society, in particular the protection of the rights and SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. - Ordinances
welfare of the youth and minors10 - filed this present enacted by local governments concerning juvenile status
petition, arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are offenses such as but not limited to, curfew violations,
unconstitutional because they: (a) result in arbitrary and truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking and anti-
discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall under the void drinking laws, as well as light offenses and
for vagueness doctrine; (b) suffer from overbreadth by misdemeanors against public order or safety such as,
proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors but not limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal,
during curfew hours; (c) deprive minors of the right to harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal
liberty and the right to travel without substantive due nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering,
process; and (d) deprive parents of their natural and public urination, and trespassing, shall be for the
primary right in rearing the youth without substantive due protection of children. No penalty shall be imposed on
process.11 In addition, petitioners assert that the Manila children for said violations, and they shall instead be
Ordinance contravenes RA 9344, as amended by RA brought to their residence or to any barangay official at
10630.12 the barangay hall to be released to the custody of their
parents. Appropriate intervention programs shall be
More specifically, petitioners posit that the Curfew provided for in such ordinances. The child shall also be
Ordinances encourage arbitrary and discriminatory recorded as a "child at risk" and not as a "child in conflict
enforcement as there are no clear provisions or detailed with the law." The ordinance shall also provide for
standards on how law enforcers should apprehend and intervention programs, such as counseling, attendance
properly determine the age of the alleged curfew in group activities for children, and for the parents,
violators.13 They further argue that the law enforcer's attendance in parenting education seminars. (Emphases
apprehension depends only on his physical assessment, and underscoring supplied.)
and, thus, subjective and based only on the law
enforcer's visual assessment of the alleged curfew To clarify, these provisions do not prohibit the enactment
violator.14 of regulations that curtail the conduct of minors, when
the similar conduct of adults are not considered as an
While petitioners recognize that the Curfew Ordinances offense or penalized (i.e., status offenses). Instead, what
contain provisions indicating the activities exempted from
108
 AB
they prohibit is the imposition of penalties on minors for the erring individual or violator to unwarranted censure
violations of these regulations. or sharp disapproval from others. In fact, the RRACCS
and our jurisprudence explicitly indicate that reprimand is
Consequently, the enactment of curfew ordinances on a penalty,170 hence, prohibited by Section 57-A of RA
minors, without penalizing them for violations thereof, is 9344, as amended.
not violative of Section 57-A.
Fines and/or imprisonment, on the other hand,
 Penalty (defined) - punishment imposed on a undeniably constitute penalties - as provided in our
wrongdoer usually in the form of imprisonment or various criminal and administrative laws and
fine jurisprudence - that Section 57-A of RA 9344, as
o Punishment imposed by lawful authority upon a amended, evidently prohibits.
person who commits a deliberate or negligent
act."  J. Leonen, Separate Opinion
o Punishment (defined) – sanction - such as
fine, penalty, confinement, or loss of property, 16. US vs. Tanedo
right, or privilege - assessed against a person
who has violated the law. Facts: The accused was a landowner. On the morning
of the 26th of January, 1909, he, with Bernardino
The provisions of RA 9344, as amended, should not be Tagampa, Casimiro Pascual, Valeriano Paulillo, and
read to mean that all the actions of the minor in violation Juan Arellano, went to work on a malecon or dam on his
of the regulations are without legal consequences. land. The defendant took with him a shotgun and a few
Section 57-A thereof empowers local governments to shells, with the intention to hunt wild chickens after he
adopt appropriate intervention programs, such as had set his laborers at work. He remained with his
community-based programs recognized under Section laborers an hour or so and then went a short distance
54 of the same law. away across a stream to see how the alteration which he
had made in the malecon affected the flow of water from
In this regard, requiring the minor to perform community the rice filed on the other side of the stream. He carried
service is a valid form of intervention program that a his shotgun with him across the stream. On the other
local government (such as Navotas City in this case) side of the stream he met the deceased, who, with his
could appropriately adopt in an ordinance to promote the mother and uncle, had been living in a small shack for a
welfare of minors. For one, the community service month or so during the rice-harvesting season. The
programs provide minors an alternative mode of accused asked the uncle of the deceased where he
rehabilitation as they promote accountability for their could find a good place in which to hunt wild chickens.
delinquent acts without the moral and social stigma The uncle was lying on the floor in the interior of the
caused by jail detention. shack sick of fever. The deceased, a young man about
20 years of age, was working at something under a
The sanction of admonition imposed by the City of manga tree a short distance from the shack. Although
Manila is likewise consistent with Sections 57 and 57-A the accused directed his question to the uncle inside of
of RA 9344 as it is merely a formal way of giving the shack, the deceased answered the question and
warnings and expressing disapproval to the minor's pointed out in a general way a portion of the forest near
misdemeanor. Admonition is generally defined as a the edge of which stood the shack. There is some
"gentle or friendly reproof' or "counsel or warning against contradiction between the testimony of the accused and
fault or oversight."163 The Black's Law Dictionary the Government witnesses just at this point. The uncle of
defines admonition as "[a]n authoritatively issued the deceased testified that the boy and the accused
warning or censure";164 while the Philippine Law invited each other mutually to hunt wild chickens and
Dictionary defines it as a "gentle or friendly reproof, a that the accused accepted the invitation. The accused,
mild rebuke, warning or reminder, [counseling], on a however, testified that he did not invite the deceased to
fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative go hunting with him, neither did the deceased go with
advice or warning."165 Notably, the Revised Rules on him, but that he remained under the manga tree "trying
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) and something." At any rate the accused went into the forest
our jurisprudence in administrative cases explicitly with his gun. What took place there is unknown to
declare that "a warning or admonition shall not be anybody except the accused. Upon that subject he
considered a penalty."166 testified as follows:

In other words, the disciplinary measures of community- And after Feliciano Sanchez pointed out that place to
based programs and admonition are clearly not penalties me, that place where the wild chickens were to be found,
- as they are not punitive in nature - and are generally I proceeded to hunt, because, in the first place, if I could
less intrusive on the rights and conduct of the minor. To kill some wild chickens we would have something to eat
be clear, their objectives are to formally inform and on that day. So when I arrived at that place I saw a wild
educate the minor, and for the latter to understand, what chickens and I shot him. And after I shot that chicken I
actions must be avoided so as to aid him in his future heard a human cry. I picked up the chicken and went
conduct. near the place where I heard the noise, and after I saw
that I had wounded a man I went back toward the
A different conclusion, however, is reached with regard malecon, where my companions were working, running
to reprimand and fines and/or imprisonment imposed by back, and when I arrived there I left my shotgun behind
the City of Manila on the minor. Reprimand is generally or by a tree not far from where my companions were
defined as "a severe or formal reproof."167 The Black's working; and I called Bernardino Tagampa to tell him
Law Dictionary defines it as "a mild form of lawyer about the occurrence, and to him I told of that occurence
discipline that does not restrict the lawyer's ability to because he is my friend and besides that he was a
practice law";168 while the Philippine Law Dictionary relative of the deceased, and when Tagampa heard of
defines it as a "public and formal censure or severe this he and myself went together to see the dead body.
reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior
officer or body to which he belongs. It is more than just a Only one shot was heard that morning and a chicken
warning or admonition."169 In other words, reprimand is was killed by gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were
a formal and public pronouncement made to denounce found in considerable qualities at the point where the
the error or violation committed, to sharply criticize and chicken was shot and where the accident occurred. The
rebuke the erring individual, and to sternly warn the defendant within a few minutes after the accident went
erring individual including the public against repeating or out of the woods to the malecon where he had left his
committing the same, and thus, may unwittingly subject laborers at work, carrying the dead chicken with him.
The accused called Bernardino Tagampa, on of the
109
 AB
laborers, to go with him and they disappeared for some her instantaneous death. The letters written by the
time. Tagampa says that they went a little way toward accused from his detention cell addressed to his mother-
the woods and came back. The accused says that they in-law, to his father-in-law, and lastly, the victim’s sister,
went to the place where the body of the deceased lay speak so eloquently of someone who accepts the fault
and removed it to a place in the cogon grass where it for the early demise of the victim. Asking forgiveness
would not be easily observed. It is certain, however, that from the close relatives of the victim is a clear admission
the body was concealed in the cogon grass. During the of authorship of the fatal act.
afternoon Tagampa left the malecon, where his fellow
laborers were working, probably to hunt for a place in In the same letters, the accused raised as an issue his
which to hide the body. The rest of the laborers saw the lack of intent to do the fatal harm to his wife. This is the
witness Yumul take the chicken which had been killed by same issue to be resolved by this Court. Whether or not
the accused. He delivered it to the wife of the accused, the fatal injury sustained by the victim was accidental.
who testified that she received the chicken from Yumul
and that it had been killed by a gunshot wound. That xxxx
evening the accused and Tagampa went together to
dispose of the body finally. They took it from the cogon Guillermo Antiporta, father of the victim, narrated in
grass where it lay concealed and carried it about Court that in the evening of November 5, 1993, between
seventeen or eighteen hundred meters from the place 9:00 o’clock to 10:00 o’clock, the accused came home
where it had originally fallen, and buried it in an old well, drunk and was in an angry mood. The accused kicked
covering it with straw and earth and burning straw on top the door and table, and then threw the electric fan away.
of the well for the purpose of concealing it. Tagampa He was prevailed upon by Guillermo to take a rest. But
said that he helped the accused dispose of the body the accused did not heed the advice of Guillermo as he
because he was afraid of him, although he admits that took instead his sling and arrow from the house ceiling
the accused in no way threatened or sought to compel where he was keeping them. Dejectedly, Guillermo
him to do so. The defendant prior to the trial denied all transferred to the adjacent house of her x x x daughter
knowledge of the death of the deceased or the [in-law] Yolanda. From there, Guillermo heard the victim
whereabouts of the body. On the trial, however, he crying and, afterwards, shouting at the accused.
confessed his participation in the death of the deceased Guillermo concernedly ordered Yolanda to see what was
and told the story substantially as above. happening inside the house of Consorcia, and Yolanda
obeyed. On her way, Yolanda met the accused carrying
Issue: the bloodied body of Consorcia. Guillermo, the accused,
and Yolanda brought Consorcia to the hospital but to no
Ruling: In this case there is absolutely no evidence of avail.
negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is there
any question that he was engaged in the commission of From all the circumstances gathered, the infliction of the
a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there fatal injury upon Consorcia was preceded by a quarrel
any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the between her and the accused. This spat negated the
death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all accused’s version that he was practicing the use of the
suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his weapon when Consorcia was hit by the arrow, and lends
concealment and denial. credence to the prosecution’s contention that the
shooting was intentional.
In the case of the State vs. Legg, above referred to, it is
said (p.1165): x x x To sustain the accused’s assertion that he was
practicing the use of said weapon at the time of the
Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the incident is patently absurd. The defense even failed to
accused is not required to prove such a defense by a rebut Guillermo Antiporta’s testimony that the accused
preponderance of the evidence, because there is a was keeping said sling and arrow inside his house.
denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon the
State to show that it was intentional, and if, from a It might be true that the accused was one of those who
consideration of all the evidence, both that for the State rushed the victim to the hospital and while on the way,
and the prisoner, there is a reasonable doubt as to he sounded remorseful. But Guillermo Antiporta further
whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional, testified that while the victim was being attended to by
the jury should acquit. . . . But where accidental killing is the medical personnel of said hospital, the accused
relied upon, the prisoner admits the killing but denies stayed outside the hospital premises, then he
that it was intentional. Therefore, the State must show disappeared. He was later on apprehended by police
that it was intentional, and it is clearly error to instruct the authorities while hiding inside the comfort room of a
jury that the defendant must show that it was an accident premises in an adjoining barangay. The accused’s
by a preponderance of the testimony, and instruction B omission to surrender himself to the authorities is a clear
in the Cross case was properly held to be erroneous. indication of guilt.3

We are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to Issue:

support the judgment of conviction.
Ruling: There is likewise no merit in appellant’s
The judgment of conviction is, therefore, reversed, the contention that assuming he was the one who killed his
defendant acquitted, and his discharge from custody wife, the same was accidental and not intentional. The
ordered, costs de oficio. exempting circumstance of accident is not applicable in
the instant case. Article 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal
17. People vs. Castillo Code, provides:

Facts: There is no dispute that the victim, Consorcia ART. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
Antiporta Castillo, died violently in the evening of liability. – The following are exempt from criminal liability:
November 5, 1993. The cause of her death was massive
hemorrhage due to "laceration of the jugular vein of her xxxx
neck". According to Dr. Solita P. Plastina, Municipal
Health Officer of Calamba, Laguna, who conducted the 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
autopsy on the victim’s body, the fatal weapon could due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
have been a "pointed instrument like a nail". There is no or intention of causing it.
dispute likewise that the accused shot with a dart from a
rubber sling, his wife hitting her at the neck and causing

110
 AB
"Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is Shortly after Emmanuel had entered his house, the
burdened to prove, with clear and convincing appellant arrived and tarried at the porch. Emmanuel
evidence.21 The defense miserably failed to discharge suddenly opened the door and demanded to know why
its burden of proof. The essential requisites for this he was being followed. The appellant told Emmanuel
exempting circumstance, are: that he just wanted to talk to Emmanuel, Jr., but
Emmanuel told the appellant that his son was already
1. A person is performing a lawful act; asleep. Norberta went down from the balcony and
placed her hand on her husband’s shoulder to pacify
2. With due care; him.

3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; The appellant forthwith pulled out a handgun from under
his T-shirt and shot Emmanuel on the forehead. The
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.22 latter fell to the floor as the appellant walked away from
the scene. Norberta shouted for help. The neighbors, her
By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a daughter, and her son-in-law arrived. They brought
deadly sling and arrow be considered as performing a Emmanuel to the Tuburan District Hospital, but the victim
"lawful act." Thus, on this ground alone, appellant’s died shortly thereafter.
defense of accident must be struck down because he
was performing an unlawful act during the incident. As Issue:
correctly found by the trial court:
Ruling: The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying
Furthermore, mere possession of sling and arrow is circumstance under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the
punishable under the law. In penalizing the act, the Revised Penal Code. It is an affirmative defense that
legislator took into consideration that the deadly weapon must be proved by the accused with clear and
was used for no legal purpose, but to inflict injury, mostly convincing evidence. By admitting causing the injuries
fatal, upon other persons. Let it be stressed that this and killing the victim, the accused must rely on the
crude weapon cannot attain the standards as an strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of
instrument for archery competitions. To sustain the the evidence of the prosecution because if such
accused’s assertion that he was practicing the use of evidence is weak but the accused fails to prove his
said weapon at the time of the incident is patently defense, the evidence of the prosecution can no longer
absurd. The defense even failed to rebut Guillermo be disbelieved. Whether the accused acted under a state
Antiporta’s testimony that the accused was keeping said of necessity is a question of fact, which is addressed to
sling and arrow inside his house.23 the sound discretion of the trial court.

Furthermore, by claiming that the killing was by accident, The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts by the trial
appellant has the burden of proof of establishing the court, its calibration of the testimony of the witnesses of
presence of any circumstance which may relieve him of the parties and of the probative weight thereof as well as
responsibility, and to prove justification he must rely on its conclusions based on its own findings are accorded
the strength of his own evidence and not on the by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive
weakness of the prosecution, for even if this be weak, it effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or
cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted misapplied cogent facts and circumstances of substance
the killing.24 Other than his claim that the killing was which, if considered, will change the outcome of the
accidental, appellant failed to adduce any evidence to case. We have meticulously reviewed the records and
prove the same. find no basis to deviate from the findings of the trial court
that the appellant was the provocateur, the unlawful
18. People vs. Retubado aggressor and the author of a deliberate and malicious
act of shooting the victim at close range on the forehead.
Facts: Shortly before November 5, 1993, someone
played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellant’s First: When Norberta heard her husband and the
younger brother who was mentally ill. Someone inserted appellant arguing with each other in the porch of their
a lighted firecracker in a cigarette pack and gave it to house, she went down from the balcony towards her
Edwin. He brought the cigarette home and placed it on husband and placed her hand on the latter’s shoulders.
the dining table as he was having dinner with his father. She was shocked when the appellant pulled out his
Momentarily, the firecracker exploded. The suspect was handgun and deliberately shot the victim on the
Emmanuel Cañon, Jr., The Cañons and the appellant forehead.
were neighbors. The matter was brought to the attention
of the barangay captain who conducted an investigation. Second: After shooting the victim, the appellant fled from
It turned out that Emmanuel Cañon, Jr. was not the the situs criminis. He surrendered to the police
culprit. The barangay captain considered the matter authorities only on November 6, 1993, but failed to
closed. The appellant, however, was bent on confronting surrender the gun he used to kill the victim. The
Emmanuel Cañon, Jr. appellant’s claim that he placed the gun on the dining
table before entering his bedroom to change his clothes
On November 5, 1993, at about 9:00 p.m., 50-year-old is incredible. There is no evidence that the appellant
Emmanuel Cañon, Sr., a pedicab driver called it a day informed the police authorities that he killed the victim in
and decided to go home after a day’s work. He drove his a state of necessity and that his brother, Edwin, threw
pedicab and stopped at the junction of Rizal and the gun into the sea. The appellant never presented the
Gallardo Streets, at the poblacion of Tuburan. The police officer to whom he confessed that he killed the
appellant, who was conversing with Marcial Luciño saw victim in a state of necessity.
him. "Noy, why is [it] your son did something to my
brother?" Emmanuel ignored the appellant. The Third: The appellant had the motive to shoot and kill the
appellant was incensed and ran after Emmanuel. He victim.1avvphi1 The victim ignored the appellant as the
overtook Emmanuel, grabbed and pushed the pedicab latter talked to him at the junction of Rizal and Gallardo
which nearly fell into a canal. Emmanuel again ignored streets, in the poblacion of Tuburan. The appellant was
the appellant and pedaled on until he reached his house. incensed at the effrontery of the victim, a mere pedicab
His wife, Norberta Cañon was in the balcony of their driver. The appellant followed the victim to his house
house, above the porch waiting for him to arrive. where the appellant again confronted him. The appellant
Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was already asleep. insisted on talking with the victim’s son but the victim
Undeterred, the appellant continued following refused to wake up the latter. The appellant,
Emmanuel. exasperated at the victim’s intransigence, pulled out a
gun from under his shirt and shot the victim on the
111
 AB
forehead. It was impossible for the victim to survive. With his .45 caliber pistol placed in his holster attached to his
the appellant’s admission that he shot the victim, the belt on his waist; then as he was holding the doorknob
matter on whether he used his right or left hand to shoot with his right hand to open the door, the victim, who was
the latter is inconsequential. two meters away from him, suddenly approached him
and grabbed his gun, but all of a sudden he held the
19. Pomoy vs. People handle of his gun with his left hand; he released his right
hand from the doorknob and, with that right hand, he
Facts: held the handle of his gun; Tomas Balboa was not able
to take actual hold of the gun because of his efforts in
Version of the Prosecution preventing him (Balboa) from holding the handle of his
gun; he used his left hand to parry the move of Balboa;
Tomas Balboa was a master teacher of the Concepcion after he held the handle of his gun with his right hand, in
College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion, Iloilo. a matter of seconds, he felt somebody was holding his
right hand; he and Balboa grappled and in two or three
"On January 4, 1990, about 7:30 in the morning, some seconds the gun was drawn from its holster as both of
policemen arrived at the Concepcion College to arrest them held the gun; more grappling followed and five
Balboa, allegedly in connection with a robbery which seconds after the gun was taken from its holster it fired,
took place in the municipality in December 1989. With the victim was to his right side when the attempt to grab
the arrest effected, Balboa and the policemen passed by his gun began and was still to his right when the gun was
the Concepcion Elementary School where his wife, drawn from its holster until it fired, as they were still
Jessica, was in a get-together party with other School grappling or wrestling; his gun was already loaded in its
Administrators. When his wife asked him, ‘Why will you chamber and cocked when he left his house, and it was
be arrested?’ [H]e answered ‘[Even I] do not know why I locked when it fired; during the grappling he used his left
am arrested. That is why I am even going there in order hand to prevent Balboa from holding his gun, while the
to find out the reason for my arrest.’ victim used his right hand in trying to reach the gun; after
the gun fired, they were separated from each other and
"Balboa was taken to the Headquarters of the already Balboa fell; he is taller than Balboa though the latter was
defunct 321st Philippine Constabulary Company at bigger in build; he cannot say nor determine who of them
Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo. He was detained in the jail was stronger; after Balboa fell, Sgt. Alag shouted saying
thereat, along with Edgar Samudio, another suspect in ‘stop that’ and he saw Sgt. Alag approaching; sometime
the robbery case. after, Capt. Rolando Maclang, their commanding officer,
came, got his gun, and said that the case be investigated
"Later that day, about a little past 2 o’clock in the as to what really happened. He said that when his gun
afternoon, petitioner, who is a police sergeant, went near was put in its holster only its handle protrudes or comes
the door of the jail where Balboa was detained and out from it.
directed the latter to come out, purportedly for tactical
interrogation at the investigation room, as he told "Upon cross-examination, he said that Balboa was a
Balboa: ‘Let’s go to the investigation room.’ The suspect in a robbery case that happened during the first
investigation room is at the main building of the week of December, 1989; he was the one who filed that
compound where the jail is located. The jail guard on case in the town of San Dionisio and that case involves
duty, Nicostrado Estepar, opened the jail door and other persons who were also detained; before January 4,
walked towards the investigation room. 1990 he had also the chance to invite and interrogate
Balboa but who denied any robbery case; x x x [I]t was
"At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, after he took his lunch that day when Capt. Maclang
tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side of his called him to conduct the interrogation; when he took
belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only Balboa from the stockade he did not tell him that he
the handle of the gun protruding from the holster. (Balboa) was to be investigated in the investigation room
which was housed in the main building which is fifty
"When petitioner and Balboa reached the main building meters, more or less, from the stockade, likewise houses
and were near the investigation room, two (2) gunshots the administrative office, the office of the commanding
were heard. When the source of the shots was verified, officer, officer of the operations division and that of the
petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, signal division; his gun was in its holster when the victim
facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood, about tried to grab it (gun); from the time he sensed that the
two (2) feet away. When the Commanding Officer of the victim tried to grab his gun, he locked the victim; the
Headquarters arrived, he disarmed petitioner and hand of the victim was on top of his hand and he felt the
directed that Balboa be brought to the hospital. Dr. victim was attempting to get his gun; that the entire
Palma (first name not provided) happened to be at the handle of his gun was exposed when placed inside its
crime scene as he was visiting his brother in the holster; he cannot tell whether the victim, while
Philippine Constabulary. When Dr. Palma examined struggling with him, was able to hold any portion of his
Balboa, he (Dr. Palma) said that it was unnecessary to gun from the tip of its barrel to the point where its
bring Balboa to the hospital for he was dead. hammer is located; during the incident his gun was fully
loaded and cocked; Sgt. Alag did not approach, but just
Version of the Defense viewed them and probably reported the incident to their
commanding officer; he was not able to talk to Sgt. Alag
as he (Pomoy) was not in his right sense; when his
Roweno Pomoy is 30 years old and a PNP member of
commanding officer came some five to ten minutes later
the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company then
and took away his gun he did not tell him anything.
attached to the defunct 321st PC Company; he was one
of the investigators of their outfit; about 2 o’clock or past
that time of January 4, 1990 he got Tomas Balboa from Issue:
their stockade for tactical interrogation; as he was
already holding the door knob of their investigation room Ruling: Accident is an exempting circumstance under
and about to open and enter it, all of a sudden he saw Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code:
Tomas Balboa approach him and take hold or grab the
handle of his gun; Tomas Balboa was a suspect in a "Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
robbery case who was apprehended by the police of liability. – The following are exempt from criminal liability:
Concepcion and then turned over to them (PC) and
placed in their stockade; he asked the sergeant of the xxx xxx xxx
guard to let Balboa out of the stockade for interrogation;
from the stockade with Balboa walking with him, he had

112
 AB
‘4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with do so by the murderers of the four teachers. And not
due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault only does the defendant affirm this, but he is
or intent of causing it.’" corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime,
Teodoro Sabate, who, by the way, is a witness for the
Exemption from criminal liability proceeds from a finding prosecution. This witness says he was present when the
that the harm to the victim was not due to the fault or Americans were killed; that Roberto Baculi was not a
negligence of the accused, but to circumstances that member of the group who killed the Americans, but the
could not have been foreseen or controlled.17 Thus, in he was in a banana plantation on his property gathering
determining whether an "accident" attended the incident, some bananas; that when he heard the shots he began
courts must take into account the dual standards of lack to run; that he was, however, seen by Damaso and
of intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence. Isidoro, the leaders of the band; that the latter called to
him and striking him with the butts of their guns they
The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused forced him to bury the corpses.
was at the time performing a lawful act with due care; 2)
the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and 3) Issue:
on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no
intent to cause the injury.27 From the facts, it is clear Ruling: The Penal Code exempts from liability any
that all these elements were present. At the time of the person who performs the act by reason of irresistible
incident, petitioner was a member -- specifically, one of force (par. 9, art. 8).
the investigators -- of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Baculi acted, doubtless, under such circumstances when
Company. Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his he executed the acts which are charged against him.
duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions
of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter’s cell As regards the other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros,
for a routine interrogation. there is no proof that he took any part in any way in the
execution of the crime with which he has been charged.
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a
law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his It appears besides, from the statements of another
possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried witness for the prosecution, Meliton Covarrubias, that the
to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, confession of Apolonio Caballeros was made through
petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his the promise made to him and to the other defendants
service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained that nothing would be done to them.
person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be
used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in Confessions which do not appear to have been made
the vicinity, including petitioner himself. freely and voluntarily, without force, intimidation, or
promise of pardon, cannot be accepted as proof on a
Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised trial. (Sec. 4, Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission).
all the necessary precautions to prevent his service
weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he 21. People vs. Loreno
so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun
locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster Facts: In the evening of January 7, 1978, Barangay
at all times, especially within the premises of his working Captain Elias Monge was at his house located at barrio
area. Magsaysay, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. He and his two
young daughters, namely: Monica Monge, single, then
At no instance during his testimony did the accused 14 years old, and Cristina Monge, married, then 22 years
admit to any intent to cause injury to the deceased, old, were preparing to attend the dance to be held in the
much less kill him. Furthermore, Nicostrato Estepar, the barrio proper that evening. But they had to wait for a
guard in charge of the detention of Balboa, did not testify while because his wife, Beata Monge, was still changing
to any behavior on the part of petitioner that would the diaper of baby Rachel Baybayon, four-month old
indicate the intent to harm the victim while being fetched daughter of Cristina Monge. The other occupants
from the detention cell. present in the house that evening were his sons, Mario,
then 11 years old, and Nilo, then 13 years old, and their
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim’s death farm helper, also staying with them, by the name of
was limited only to acts committed in the course of the Francisco Fable. Cristina was then vacationing at her
lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the parents' house. Her husband, Raymundo Baybayon,
law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the release was in Manila (pp. 2-5, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM: pp, 2-3,
of the safety lock, and the firing of the two successive tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AM: pp. 2-4, tsn, Oct. 19, 1979 AM:
shots -- all of which led to the death of the victim -- were pp. 2-3, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 AM: pp. 2-3, tsn, Oct. 29,
sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of 1979 AM).
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the
very least, these factual circumstances create serious At about 7:40 o'clock that same evening, while he was at
doubt on the latter’s culpability. the balcony of said house, Francisco Fable saw at first
four men with flashlights approaching. When they came
20. US vs. Caballeros near, he heard one of them call Elias Monge saving that
there was a letter from the chief hepe. Fable called Elias
Facts: The defendants have been sentenced by the CFI Monge who was in the sala, informing him that there was
of Cebu to the penalty of seven years of presidio mayor a letter from the chief. Two of the visitors, one wearing
as accessories after the fact in the crime of red clothes and the other in dark sweater. came up the
assassination or murder perpetrated on the persons of house. When Elias Monge went out to the balcony the
the American school-teachers Louis A. Thomas, Clyde man in dark sweater handed to him the letter. Because it
O. France, John E. Wells, and Ernest Eger, because, was dark to read it, Elias Monge invited the man in dark
without having taken part in the said crime as principals sweater to come inside the sala. The other man in red
or as accomplices, they took part in the burial of the clothes posted himself near the post of the balcony (pp.
corpses of the victims in order to conceal the crime. 4-5, tsn, Oct. 19, 1979 AM: pp. 6-7, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979
AM: pp. 4-9, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AMOUNT pp. 4-7, tsn,
The evidence does not justify, in our opinion, this Oct. 29, 1979 AM: pp. 4, 12-13, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM).
sentence. As regards Roberto Baculi, although he
confessed to having assisted in the burial of the corpses, When he and the man in dark sweater were inside the
it appears that he did so because he was compelled to sala Elias Monge asked his daughter, Monica to fetch his

113
 AB
reading glasses. On reading the letter, Elias Monge and 19, 1979 AM pp. 5, 14, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM pp. 5-6,
Monica read the following: "Kami mga NPA", which tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 AM).
caused Monica to run to her mother, seized with fear,
informing her what she came to know about the visitors. Below in the sala, Monica Monge's parents and others
Cristina Morgagor attempted to run to the kitchen to get heard her shouts for help and the struggle she put up
a bolo but she was held back by the man in dark sweater inside the room. Hearing her shouts for help, Loreno
who then announced to all those inside not to make any menacingly pointed his gun at them, telling them not to
scandal. kitchen Elias Monge turned to look at him the rise if they wanted to live, Then Loreno brought Beata
man in dark sweater poked his gun at him, and ordered Monge first to the master’s room and then to the
all those inside the on the floor (pp. 13-14, tsn, Oct. 18, teacher's room. During these two occasions, he forced
1979 Pvl p. 7, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM pp. 4 4, 12-13, tsn, Beata Monge to open the aparador and the trunk
Oct. 29, 1979 AM pp. 4, 13, 16, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM) respectively, with her keys, and he got their contents,
which he brought to the sala, holding on to Beata Monge
In the meantime outside at the balcony the man in red who remained tied. All the things he got from the two
clothes asked Fable for a glass of water arid the latter rooms were poured on the floor of the sala (pp. 7, 9, tsn,
asked Mario Monge to get the glass of later, but Mario Oct. 19, 1979 AM pp. 10-1 1, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM pp.
did not obey and instead went to the sala Hence, Fable 7-13, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 PM pp. 5-6, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979
himself outside inside the house to the the glass of PM pp. 17-19, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AM).
water. But, as he went inside the sala, he noticed the
man in red clothes following him. As Fable reached the Thereafter, the man in dark sweater returned to the sala,
door to the sala, the man in red clothes poked his gun on dragging along Monica Monge whose hair was
Fable's back and pointed a sharp instrument on his neck dishevelled and was crying, and he made her join the
and then he wish pushed to go inside the sala. Once others on the floor of the sala. He reached for a can of
inside the sala, which Aras lighted, Fable saw and pineapple juice from the aparador and the sala and
recognized the man in red clothes these to Estaquio drank its contents. Not long thereafter, he turned his
loreno. Also Elias Monge and his two daughters, Monica attention to Cristina Monge, and he dragged her to the
and Cristina, saw and recognized Eustaquio Loreno as room which was then rented by school teacher Miss
he entered the sala as one of the companions of the Olitoquit (who was then in Naga City). Inside the room,
man in dark sweater. All the occupants of the house the man in dark sweater forced his lewd designs on her
were ordered by the man in dark sweater and Loreno to but she resisted and struggled although her hands were
remain lying flat on their stomachs on the floor (pp. 5-6, still tied behind her back. He boxed her, hitting her on
tsn, Oct. 19, 1979 AM: pp. 10-12, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AM her right eye which caused her to lose consciousness.
pp. 1-8, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM pp. 21-22, tsn, Oct. 18, He then proceeded to satisfy his lust on her. When she
1979 PM pp. 5, 17-18, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM p. 5, tsn, regained consciousness, the man in dark sweater
Oct. 29, 1979 AM). returned her shorts. She then realized that he had
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her (p. 6,
Thereafter, the man in dark sweater instructed Loreno to 17-19, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 AM pp. 7-8, tsn, Oct. 19, 1979
tie all their victims on the floor. Loreno tied them with AM pp. 11-12, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM pp. 6, 14-15, 18,
rattan. The man in dark sweater cut the baby's hammock tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM).
(duyan) and got the ropes with which he and Loreno
used to reinforce in tying the victim's hands together While the man in dark sweater and Cristina Monge were
behind their backs. Thereafter, the man in dark sweater still inside the teacher's room, a third man entered the
instructed Loreno to go downstairs and drive the barking sala, and he told Loreno to cover their victims on the
dog away. Loreno held Fable and brought him floor with a mat. Loreno found instead a piece of lawanit
downstairs to drive the barking dog away (pp, 8-9, tsn, with which they covered their victims. The third man
Oct. 18, 1979 AM p. 6, tsn, Oct. 19, 1979 AM). proceeded to the kitchen, and when he returned to the
sala, he was bringing along some rice. Then, a fourth
On reaching the corner of the house below the flashlight man entered the sala and he asked from Elias Monge for
used by Loreno happened to focus on the person of a cigarette. Elias Monge stood up and told him to get it
Jimmy Marantal. Fable immediately recognized Jimmy from his pocket as he was still tied. Reacting to Monge's
Marantal as one of the visitors who remained on the reply, the fourth man boxed him, hitting him on his breast
ground as lookouts. Jimmy Marantal beamed his and solar plexus which caused him to fall on the floor.
flashlight on the face of Fable, and seeing the latter, he Then Loreno asked Elias Monge to accompany him to
kicked him (Fable) on the right side of his rib which the house of a nearby neighbor. On reaching the
caused him to fall on the ground. Marantal kicked Fable balcony, Elias Monge protested and refused to
who managed to roll on his side and was hit on his left accompany Loreno who then held Elias Monge by the
thigh. After a while, Loreno lifted Fable bodily from the neck, pointing his gun at him. Beata Monge protested,
ground, and brought am back upstairs (pp. 6-7, tsn, Oct. telling her husband not to go along. Loreno desisted
19, 1979 AM pp. 13-14, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AM). from his plan to go to the nearby neighbor's house, Elias
Monge did not recognize the Identities of both the third
After Loreno and Fable returned to the sala, the man in and fourth men (pp. 12-15, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM pp. 16-
dark sweater got hold of Monica Monge and dragged her 17, 25-26, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 PM pp. 12-13, tsn, Oct. 22,
up to a room located above the balcony. She tried to 1979 AM pp. 7, 14-15, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 AM).
resist but she was then still tied, Inside the room, Monica
was asked to reveal the whereabouts of her piggy bank Thereafter Loreno entered the room where Cristina
savings. She said there was none. He ransacked the Monge was earlier brought by the man in dark sweater,
room but found none. The man in dark sweater then and he found her still lying on the floor. Loreno
seized Monica and forcibly removed her pants. Monica embraced her trying to kiss her and touch her private
resisted and shouted at her parents for help. He boxed parts. One of the malefactors on the ground called those
and slapped her. Despite her struggle, he was able to upstairs to hurry because a man was approaching.
remove her panty and then made her lay on the floor Loreno then released Cristina Monge and told her to
near the bed. After undressing himself, he forcibly went return to the sala to breastfeed her daughter who was
on top of her. She kept on struggling and shouting for continuously crying. Thereafter, the malefactors went
help, but he succeeded in inserting his organ into her down from the house one by one, bringing along all the
vagina. She felt pain. He proceeded to have sexual things they robbed from their victims. The man in dark
intercourse with her. She could not do anything to stop sweater returned to the sala and touched the thighs of
him from consummating his lust as she was still tied. Cristina Monge, who was already wearing her shorts,
When he was through with her, she noticed blood in her and he told them not to tell anybody what happened to
private part (p. 9, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM p. 7, tsn, Oct. them, otherwise he will kill them. And then all the

114
 AB
malefactors left the place (pp. 15-16, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 Ruling: We, however, find the contention untenable.
AM pp. 16, 18, 19-20, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM).
A person who acts under the compulsion of an
Soon thereafter, Elias Monge heard Sixto Agapito who irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
was On the ground near the fence of the house calling uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt
him, asking if he was going to the dancehall Elias Monge from criminal liability because he does not act with
replied from upstairs that he was not feeling well, and freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to
Agapito left. EUSTAQUIO Monge was able to untie a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
himself, and then he also untied the others. Fable then against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
revealed to him that earlier when he had gone down with must be present, imminent and impending and of such a
Loreno, he (Fabie) saw and recognized Jimmy Marantal nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of
as among those left on the ground as lookout for the Appellee's Brief. death or serious bodily harm if the act is
group that had just robbed them. Cristina and Monica not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The
Monge also told their father that they were abused by the compulsion must be of Such a character as to leave no
man in dark sweater when they were brought inside the opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
rooms. For the rest of the night, they remained on guard equal combat.
and could hardly sleep (pp. 15-16, 17, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979
AM pp. 10-11, tsn, Oct. 19, 1979 AM p. 7, tsn, Oct. 29, The records likewise revealed that on the two occasions
1979 PM). Eustaquio Loreno brought Beata Monge to the master's
room and the teacher's room where he made her open
Elias Monge and his family later discovered that they the trunk and the "aparador" with her keys and got the
were robbed of their following personal properties: contents which he brought and poured on the floor of the
jewelry valued at Pl,000.00' two mosquito nets, P70.00; sala, appellant Loreno acted alone, without the threat
three bets, P200.00; one caldero of rice, P30.00; one and assistance of the man in dark sweater. And after the
reversible jacket, P40.00; three chickens, P30.00; one man in dark sweater consummated his lust on Cristina
camera, P400.00; one beach towel, P35.00; cash in the Monge in the teacher's room and seeing Cristina Monge
amount of P6,500,00; and several others, all in the total still lying on the floor, Loreno embraced her and tried to
of P10,305.00, more or less (pp. 4-6, 8, 14-17, tsn, Oct. kiss and touch her private parts.
22, 1979; pp. 16-17, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM).
When Eustaquio Loreno and Francisco Fable went
Fabie had often seen and had known Loreno because downstairs to drive the barking dog away, the flashlight
the latter's daughter married a member of the youth of Loreno happened to be focused on the face of Jimmy
organization in the barrio when he (Fabie) was its Marantal who in turn beamed his flashlight on the
president. Elias Monge had already known Loreno approaching Fable. Upon seeing Fable, Jimmy Marantal
whose occupation was catching wild pigs, and the latter kicked the former twice causing him (Fabie) to fall to the
used to place bobby traps in his (Monge's) place to catch ground. Marantal's reaction towards Fable was due to
pigs, during which occasions Loreno usually slept in his the fact that Fable had recognized him and the blows
house, Monica Monge and Cristina Monge also had which he gave to Fable who was still tied at the moment
already known Loreno because his daughter married a was to serve as a warning to Fable not to report his
neighbor near their house. Monica often saw Loreno presence and participation in the robbery-rape incident
traverse the playground of the Magsaysay Elementary to the authorities.
School where he was studying. Fable had also known
Jimmy Marantal because the latter often attended Jimmy Marantal, who was standing at the gate of the
dances held by the barrio youth organization, and he house below, must have heard the shouts of Monica
(Marantal) even married one of its members, He had Monge for help and must have known by then that
engaged Marantal in conversations many times p. 3, tsn, Monica Monge was being abused by his two
Oct. 19, 1979 AM pp. 2-3, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979 AM pp. 2-3, companions who earlier went up the house. As a
8-9, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 AM pp. 2-3, 7-8, tsn, Oct. 18- "lookout" or guard, Jimmy Marantal gave his companions
1979 AM pp. 2-3, 21-22, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 PM pp. 2, 8- effective means and encouragement to commit the
10, 17-18, tsn, Oct. 29, 1979 PM). crimes of robbery and rape. There was no showing that
Jimmy Marantal raised a voice of protest or did an act to
Despite the revelation of her daughters to him that they prevent the commission of the crimes.
were sexually abused that fateful evening, Elias Monge
forced himself to report the following day, Sunday the All these demonstrated the voluntary participation and
robbery-rape incident at the PC detachment in Sipocot, the conspiracy of the appellants. The foregoing acts,
but there was no one to talk there. So he proceeded to though separately performed from those of their
the PC headquarters at Camp Tara, bringing along the unidentified companions, clearly showed their
ropes and rattan which were used by the malefactors in community of interest and concert of criminal design with
tying him and his family during the robbery-rape incident. their unidentified companions which constituted
He was given a written recommendation from the PC to conspiracy without the need of direct proof of the
the hospital with instructions to have himself and his conspiracy itself. Conspiracy may be inferred and proven
daughter Monica be physically examined. Cristina by the acts of the accused themselves and when said
Monge was informed that there was no need for her to acts point to joint purpose and concert of action and
submit for physical examination because she was community of interest, which unity of purpose and
already married. (pp. 18-19, tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 AM p. 18; concert of action serve to establish the existence of
tsn, Oct. 18, 1979 PM p. 8, tsn., Oct. 29, 1979 PM). conspiracy, and the degree of actual participation
petition by each of the conspirators is immaterial.
 Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators
claimed that they acted under the compulsion of an are liable as co-penpals regardless of the extent and
irresistible force and/or under the impulse of character of their participation because in contemplation
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. They of law, the act of one is the act of all.
admitted that they were in the house of Elias Monge
on the night of January 7, 1978, 4 but they were only 22. People vs. Del Rosario
forced by a man wearing black sweater and his five
companions who claimed to be members of the New Facts: At around 5:30 in the afternoon he was hired for
People's Army (NPA), operating in the locality, with P120.005 by a certain "Boy" Santos,6 his co-accused.
the threat that if they did not obey, appellants and Their original agreement was that he would drive him to
their families would be killed. a cockpit at the Bias Edward Coliseum.7 However
despite their earlier arrangement Boy Santos directed
Issue: him to proceed to the market place to fetch "Jun"
115
 AB
Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya. He (del Rosario) Facts: At about 7 o'clock in the morning of January 31,
acceded.8 Marquez and Bisaya boarded in front of the 1936, Valentin Aguilar, the appellant's neighbor, saw the
parking lot of Merced Drugstore at the public market.9 appellant go to a thicket about four or five brazas from
Subsequently, he was asked to proceed and stop at the her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature
corner of Burgos and General Luna Sts. where Bisaya because it was there that the people of the place used to
alighted on the pretext of buying a cigarette. The latter go for that purpose. A few minutes later, he again saw
then accosted the victim Virginia Bernas and grappled her emerge from the thicket with her clothes stained with
with her for the possession of her bag. Jun Marquez blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly
alighted from the tricycle to help "Dodong" Bisaya. 10 showing signs of not being able to support herself. He
Accused del Rosario tried to leave and seek help but ran to her aid and, having noted that she was very weak
"Boy Santos" who stayed inside the tricycle prevented and dizzy, he supported and helped her go up to her
him from leaving and threatened in fact to shoot him. house and placed her in her own bed. Upon being asked
before Aguilar brought her to her house, what happened
Meanwhile, "Dodong" Bisaya succeeded in taking the to her, the appellant merely answered that she was very
victim's bag, but before boarding the tricycle "Jun" dizzy. Not wishing to be alone with the appellant in such
Marquez mercilessly shot the victim on the head while circumstances, Valentin Aguilar called Adriano Comcom,
she was lying prone on the ground. After the shooting, who lived nearby, to help them, and later requested him
"Dodong" Bisaya boarded the sidecar of the tricycle to take bamboo leaves to stop the hemorrhage which
while "Jun" Marquez rode behind del Rosario and had come upon the appellant. Comcom had scarcely
ordered him to start the engine and drive towards gone about five brazas when he saw the body of a
Dicarma. While inside his tricycle, del Rosario overheard newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where
his passengers saying that they would throw the bag at the appellant had gone a few moments before. Comcom
Zulueta St. where there were cogon grasses. 11 Upon informed Aguilar of it and latter told him to bring the body
arriving at Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and to the appellant's house. Upon being asked whether the
warned del Rosario not to inform the police authorities baby which had just been shown to her was hers or not,
about the incident otherwise he and his family would be the appellant answered in the affirmative.
harmed. 12 Del Rosario then went home. 13 Because of
the threat, however, he did not report the matter to the Upon being notified of the incident at 2 o'clock in the
owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay captain and the afternoon of said day, Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno, president
police. of the sanitary division of Talisayan, Oriental Misamis,
went to the appellant's house and found her lying in bed
Issue: still bleeding. Her bed, the floor of her house and
beneath it, directly under the bed, were full of blood.
Ruling: The conviction of del Rosario must be set aside. Basing his opinion upon said facts, the physician in
His claim for exemption from criminal liability under Art. question declared that the appellant gave birth in her
12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he acted under the house and in her own bed; that after giving birth she
compulsion of an irresistible force must be sustained. threw her child into the thicket to kill it for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor from the man, Luis Kirol, with
A person who acts under the compulsion of an whom she had theretofore been living maritally, because
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of the child was not his but of another man with whom she
an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is had previously had amorous relations. To give force to
exempt from criminal liability because he does not act his conclusions, he testified that the appellant had
with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. admitted to him that she had killed her child, when he
An act done by me against my will is not my act. The went to her house at the time and on the date above-
force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce stated.
the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without
will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or By the way, it should be stated that there is no evidence
intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, showing how the child in question died. Dr. Nepomuceno
and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded himself affirmed that the wounds found in the body of the
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act child were not caused by the hand of man but by bites
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The animals, the pigs that usually roamed through the thicket
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no where it was found.
opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. 18 Issue:

As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear Ruling: The evidence certainly does not show that the
when threatened with weapons, even those less appellant, in causing her child's death in one way or
powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so wilfully,
will normally, usually and probably do what an armed consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or
man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with
instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He a former lover, which was not unknown to her second
could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to lover, Luis Kirol, took place three years before the
help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances incident; her married life with Kirol — she considers him
would be more concerned with his personal welfare and her husband as he considers her his wife — began a
security rather than the safety of a person whom he only year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew that the
saw for the first time that day. 19 appellant was pregnant and he believed from the
beginning, affirming such belief when he testified at the
There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del trial, that the child carried by the appellant in her womb
Rosario because of the gun directly pointed at him was was his, and he testified that he and she had been
real and imminent. Such fear rendered him immobile and eagerly waiting for the birth of the child. The appellant,
subject to the will of Boy Santos, making him for the therefore, had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy
moment an automaton without a will of his own. In other to Kirol.
words, in effect, he could not be any more than a mere
instrument acting involuntarily and against his will. He is If to the foregoing facts is added the testimony of the
therefore exempt from criminal liability since by reason of witnesses Valentin Aguilar and Adriano Comcom that the
fear of bodily harm he was compelled against his will to child was taken from the thicket and carried already
transport his co-accused away from the crime scene. dead to the appellant's house after the appellant had left
the place, staggering, without strength to remain on her
23. People vs. Bandian feet and very dizzy, to the extent of having to be as in
fact she was helped to go up to her house and to lie in
116
 AB
bed, it will clearly appear how far from the truth were Dr. Facts: At around 5:30 in the afternoon of 13 April 1999,
Nepomuceno's affirmation and conclusions. Also add to BBB, who made a living by selling goods aboard ships
all these the fact that the appellant denied having made docked at the Romblon Pier, and who was constantly
any admission to said physician and that from the time assisted by her 15-year-old son AAA, was on a ship
she became pregnant she continuously had fever. This plying her wares. AAA, together with Jovencio and
illness and her extreme debility undoubtedly caused by Raymund, was there helping his mother.7 Sometime
her long illness as well as the hemorrhage which she later, Raymund and AAA left the ship. Jovencio stayed a
had upon giving birth, coupled with the circumstances little longer.8
that she is a primipara, being then only 23 years of age,
and therefore inexperienced as to childbirth and as to the At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Jovencio and
inconvenience or difficulties usually attending such another friend named Michael Manasan sat beside the
event; and the fact that she, like her lover Luis Kirol — a Rizal monument in the Poblacion of Romblon, located
mere laborer earning only twenty-five centavos a day — between the Roman Catholic Church and Lover’s Inn.
is uneducated and could supplant with what she had Michael had just left Jovencio when Raymund, Rodel,
read or learned from books what experience itself could Bernardino and the victim AAA arrived. After meandering
teach her, undoubtedly were the reasons why she was around, the group proceeded to climb the stairs, atop of
not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur which was the reservoir just beside the Romblon
to her or she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness, National High School. The victim, AAA, ascended first;
which causes may be considered lawful or insuperable behind him were Rodel, Raymund, Bernardino and
to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance (art. witness Jovencio. As soon as they reached the reservoir,
12, Revised Penal Code), to take her child from the Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the handkerchief of
thicket where she had given it birth, so as not to leave it Raymund. Bernardino at once blurted out, "Join the
abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. rugby boys." AAA replied, "That’s enough." Bernardino
then struck AAA thrice with a fresh and hard coconut
The act performed by the appellant in the morning in frond. AAA lost his balance and was made to stand up
question, by going into the thicket, according to her, to by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino. Raymund took his
respond to call of nature, notwithstanding the fact that turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with the
she had fever for a long time, was perfectly lawful. If by same coconut frond. AAA wobbled. Before he could
doing so she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to recover, he received punches to his head and body from
her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not Rodel, who was wearing brass knuckles. The
because of imprudence or any other reason than that punishments proved too much, as AAA lost
she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme consciousness.
debility, she should not be blamed therefor because it all
happened by mere accident, from liability any person Not satisfied, Raymund placed his handkerchief around
who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (art. the neck of AAA, with its ends tied to a dog chain. With
12, subsection 4, Revised Penal Code). the contraption, the three malefactors pulled the body up
a tree.
 J. Villareal, Separate Opinion
Stunned at the sight of his cousin being ill-treated,
We cannot apply to the accused fourth exempting Jovencio could only muster a faint voice saying
circumstance of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code "Enough" every single-time AAA received the painful
which reads: "Any person who, while performing a lawful blows. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest finishing off
act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident the victim, remarked, "Since we’re all here, let’s get on
without fault or intention of causing it," because although with it." Before leaving the scene, the three assailants
the lawful act of satisfying a natural physiological warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or
necessity accidentally provoked the delivery, the delivery he would be next.
itself was not an injury, but the exposure of the child at
the mercy of the elements and of the animals which Tormented and torn between the desire to come clean
cased its death. As the child was born alive, if the and the fear for his life, Jovencio hardly slept that night.
accused had been aware of her delivery and she had He did not divulge the incident to anyone for the next few
deliberately abandoned the child, her accidental delivery days. BBB, the victim’s mother, was worried when her
would not exempt her from criminal liability because then son did not come home. She started asking relatives
the death of said child no longer would have been whether they had seen her son, but their reply was
accidental. always in the negative.

Neither can we consider the seventh exempting It was three days later that a certain Eugenio Murchanto
circumstance of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code reported to the police authorities about a dead man
consisting in the failure to perform an act required by found in Barangay ZZZ near the Romblon National High
law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable School. When the policemen went there, they found the
cause, because this exempting circumstance implies cadaver emitting a foul odor, with maggots crawling all
knowledge of the precept of the law to be complied with over, hanging from a tree with a handkerchief tied
but is prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause, around the neck and a dog chain fastened to the
that is by some motive which has lawfully, morally or handkerchief. Also found in the area were paraphernalia
physically prevented one to do what the law commands. for inhaling rugby, as well as empty bottles of gin and a
In the present case, what the law requires of the coconut frond.
accused-appellant, with respect to the child, is that she
care for, protect and not abandon it. Had she been The provincial hospital refused to conduct an autopsy,
aware of her delivery and of the existence of the child, since AAA’s corpse was already decomposing and stank
neither her debility nor her dizziness resulting from the so badly. It was through the intercession of the NBI that
fever which consumed her, being in the full enjoyment of the body was eventually exhumed and examined by
her mental faculties and her illness not being of such medico-legal experts. Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr., who
gravity as to prevent her from asking for help, would conducted the examination, opined that the victim died
constitute the lawful or insuperable impediment required due to head injuries and not to asphyxiation by hanging.
by law. Having been ignorant of her delivery and of the He declared that the victim was already dead when he
existence of the child, to her there was subjectively no was tied to the tree, and that the variety of injuries
cause for the law to impose a duty for her to comply with. sustained by the victim could be attributed to more than
one assailant.
24. Madali vs. People
Issue:

117
 AB
Ruling: As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. The Court of Appeals could not have been more
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Raymund, accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with
who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed discernment. Rodel, together with his cohorts, warned
the crime, should be exempt from criminal liability and Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone;
should be released to the custody of his parents or otherwise, they would kill him. Rodel knew, therefore,
guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be
No. 9344, to wit: kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences
of his unlawful act.
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal to be imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an shall be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. law, but always in the proper period.

xxxx However, the sentence to be imposed against Rodel

should be suspended pursuant to Section 38 of Republic
The exemption from criminal liability herein established Act No. 9344, which states:
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforced in accordance with existing laws. SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once
the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the
SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of
Responsibility. — If it has been determined that the child the offense charged, the court shall determine and
taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from
authority which will have an initial contact with the child the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing
has the duty to immediately release the child to the the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child
custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence in conflict with the law under suspended sentence,
thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall without need of application. Provided, however, that
give notice to the local social welfare and development suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the
officer who will determine the appropriate programs in juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
consultation with the child and to the person having the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or
nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to 25. People vs. Florencio Agacer
take custody, the child may be released to any of the
following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious Facts: For resolution is appellants' Motion for
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Reconsideration1 of our December 14, 2011 Decision2
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); affirming their conviction for the murder of Cesario
a local social welfare and development officer; or, when Agacer, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred
to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the November 17,
and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents H.C. No. 01543 which affirmed the August 7, 2001
will not comply with the prevention program, the proper Decision of the RTC, Branch 8, Aparri, Cagayan, finding
petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the appellants Florencio, Franklin, Elynor, Eddie and Eric, all
DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development surnamed Agacer. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, crime of murder, with the following modifications:
otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare
Code." (1) actual damages is DELETED;

Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and (2) the appellants are ORDERED to pay the heirs of
Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, Cesario Agacer ₱25,000.0 as temperate damages; and
the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of
Raymund who was not shown to be a habitual criminal. (3) the appellants are ORDERED to pay the heirs of
Cesario Agacer h interest at the legal rate of six percent
While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages
liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this
paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344. Decision until fully paid.

 As to Rodel’s situation, it must be borne in mind that Costs against appellants.

he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of
the crime. A determination of whether he acted with SO ORDERED.3
or without discernment is necessary pursuant to
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, viz: Appellants assert that their mere presence at the scene
of the crime is not evidence of conspiracy;4 that there
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – x x x. was no treachery since a heated argument preceded the
killing of the victim; and that even assuming that their
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) guilt was duly established, the privileged mitigating
years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal circumstance of minority should have been appreciated
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer (Franklin) who was
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which only 16 years and 106 days old at the time of the
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate incident, having been born on December 21, 1981.
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
Issue: Should the mitigating circumstance of minority be
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin?
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.24 Such
capacity may be known and should be determined by Ruling: We agree with appellants that Franklin is entitled
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
afforded by the records in each case. Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was
born on December 20, 1981, hence, was merely 16
years old at the time of the commission of the crime on

118
 AB
April 2, 1998. He is therefore entitled to the privileged with Metrobank and issue the checks to effect her
mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article mother’s immediate discharge.
68(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue:
It provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and
under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that Ruling: ss
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but
always in the proper period. The rationale of the law in Ty does not deny having issued the seven (7) checks
extending such leniency and compassion is that because subject of this case. She, however, claims that the
of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with issuance of the checks was under the impulse of an
less discernment.15 This is regardless of the fact that his uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of
minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth a greater evil or injury. She would also have the Court
certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration, believe that there was no valuable consideration in the
since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the issuance of the checks.
rights of the state, the victim and his heirs.
For this exempting circumstance to be invoked
Pursuant to the above discussion, the penalty imposed successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1)
upon Franklin must be accordingly modified. The penalty existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be
for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. A degree real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater
lower is reclusion temporal.16 There being no than or at least equal to that committed.24
aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstance, the
penalty to be imposed on Franklin should be reclusion It must appear that the threat that caused the
temporal in its medium period, as maximum, which uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and imminence that
ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.25 It
one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear
months.17 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for one’s life or limb.26 A mere threat of a future injury is
the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor, the not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or
medium period of which ranges from eight (8) years and remote.27 A person invoking uncontrollable fear must
one (1) day to ten (10) years. Due to the seriousness of show therefore that the compulsion was such that it
the crime and the manner it was committed, the penalty reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without
must be imposed at its most severe range. will but against his will as well.28 It must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
26. Ty vs. People escape.29

Facts: The evidence for the prosecution shows that Ty’s In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty
mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila was not real and imminent. Ty claims that she was
Doctors’ Hospital (hospital) from 30 October 1990 until 4 compelled to issue the checks--a condition the hospital
June 1992. Being the patient’s daughter, Ty signed the allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be
"Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the discharged--for fear that her mother’s health might
Contract of Admission dated 30 October 1990.6 As of 4 deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the
June 1992, the Statement of Account7 shows the total hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide. This
liability of the mother in the amount of ₱657,182.40. Ty’s is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear
sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the hospital from contemplated by law.
13 May 1991 until 2 May 1992, incurring hospital bills in
the amount of ₱418,410.55.8 The total hospital bills of To begin with, there was no showing that the mother’s
the two patients amounted to ₱1,075,592.95. On 5 June illness was so life-threatening such that her continued
1992, Ty executed a promissory note wherein she stay in the hospital suffering all its alleged unethical
assumed payment of the obligation in installments.9 treatment would induce a well-grounded apprehension of
her death. Secondly, it is not the law’s intent to say that
To assure payment of the obligation, she drew several any fear exempts one from criminal liability much less
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the petitioner’s flimsy fear that her mother might commit
hospital. The seven (7) checks, each covering the suicide. In other words, the fear she invokes was not
amount of ₱30,000.00, were all deposited on their due impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition
dates. But they were all dishonored by the drawee bank and to make her a mere instrument without will, moved
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency exclusively by the hospital’s threats or demands.
of funds, with the "Account Closed" advice. Soon
thereafter, the complainant hospital sent demand letters Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was left
to Ty by registered mail. As the demand letters were not with no choice but to commit a crime. She did not take
heeded, complainant filed the seven (7) Informations advantage of the many opportunities available to her to
subject of the instant case.10 avoid committing one. By her very own words, she
admitted that the collateral or security the hospital
For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks required prior to the discharge of her mother may be in
because of "an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury." the form of postdated checks or jewelry.30 And if indeed
She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to she was coerced to open an account with the bank and
obtain release for her mother whom the hospital issue the checks, she had all the opportunity to leave the
inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge scene to avoid involvement.
unless the hospital bills are paid. She alleged that her
mother was deprived of room facilities, such as the air- Moreover, petitioner had sufficient knowledge that the
condition unit, refrigerator and television set, and subject issuance of checks without funds may result in a
to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the violation of B.P. 22. She even testified that her counsel
telephone line, late delivery of her mother’s food and advised her not to open a current account nor issue
refusal to change the latter’s gown and bedsheets. She postdated checks "because the moment I will not have
also bewailed the hospital’s suspending medical funds it will be a big problem."31 Besides, apart from
treatment of her mother. The "debasing treatment," she petitioner’s bare assertion, the record is bereft of any
pointed out, so affected her mother’s mental, evidence to corroborate and bolster her claim that she
psychological and physical health that the latter was compelled or coerced to cooperate with and give in
contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged to the hospital’s demands.
from the hospital. Fearing the worst for her mother, and
to comply with the demands of the hospital, Ty was 27. People. vs. Arpon
compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account
119
 AB
Facts: The prosecution presented the lone testimony of determine the age of a child in conflict with the law,69
AAA to prove the charges against the accused-appellant. viz:
AAA testified that she was born on November 1, 1987.15
In one afternoon when she was only eight years old, she SEC. 7. Determination of Age. — The child in conflict
stated that the accused-appellant raped her inside their with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
house. She could not remember, though, the exact He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with
month and date of the incident. The accused-appellant the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years
stripped off her shorts, panties and shirt and went on top of age or older. The age of a child may be determined
of her. He had his clothes on and only pulled down his from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or
zipper. He then pulled out his organ, put it in her vagina any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these
and did the pumping motion. AAA felt pain but she did documents, age may be based on information from the
not know if his organ penetrated her vagina. When he child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
pulled out his organ, she did not see any blood. She did physical appearance of the child and other relevant
so only when she urinated. evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
shall be resolved in his/her favor.
AAA also testified that the accused-appellant raped her
again in July 1999 for five times on different nights. The Furthermore, in Sierra v. People,70 we clarified that, in
accused-appellant was then drinking alcohol with BBB, the past, the Court deemed sufficient the testimonial
the stepfather of AAA, in the house of AAA’s neighbor. evidence regarding the minority and age of the accused
He came to AAA’s house, took off her panty and went on provided the following conditions concur, namely: "(1)
top of her. She could not see what he was wearing as it the absence of any other satisfactory evidence such as
was nighttime. He made her hold his penis then he left. the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar
When asked again how the accused-appellant raped her documents that would prove the date of birth of the
for five nights in July of the said year, AAA narrated that accused; (2) the presence of testimony from accused
he pulled down her panty, went on top of her and and/or a relative on the age and minority of the accused
pumped. She felt pain as he put his penis into her at the time of the complained incident without any
vagina. Every time she urinated, thereafter, she felt pain. objection on the part of the prosecution; and (3) lack of
AAA said that she recognized the accused-appellant as any contrary evidence showing that the accused's and/or
her assailant since it was a moonlit night and their his relatives' testimonies are untrue."71
window was only covered by cloth. He entered through
the kitchen as the door therein was detached. In the instant case, the accused-appellant testified that
he was born on February 23, 1982 and that he was only
AAA further related that the accused-appellant raped her 13 years old when the first incident of rape allegedly
again twice in August 1999 at nighttime. He kissed her happened in 1995.72 Other than his testimony, no other
and then he took off his shirt, went on top of her and evidence was presented to prove the date of his birth.
pumped. She felt pain in her vagina and in her chest However, the records of this case show neither any
because he was heavy. She did not know if his penis objection to the said testimony on the part of the
penetrated her vagina. She related that the accused- prosecution, nor any contrary evidence to dispute the
appellant was her uncle as he was the brother of her same. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals should
mother. AAA said that she did not tell anybody about the have appreciated the accused-appellant’s minority in
rapes because the accused-appellant threatened to kill ascertaining the appropriate penalty.
her mother if she did. She only filed a complaint when he
proceeded to also rape her younger sister, DDD. II. Although the acts of rape in this case were
committed before Republic Act No. 9344 took
Upon the other hand, the defense called the accused- effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still
appellant to the witness stand to deny the informations applicable given that Section 68 thereof
filed against him and to refute the testimony of AAA. He expressly states:
testified that when the first incident of rape allegedly
happened in 1995, he was only 13 years old as he was SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are
born on February 23, 1982. In 1995, he worked in Serving Sentences. — Persons who have been
Sagkahan, Tacloban City as a houseboy for a certain convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the
Gloria Salazar and he stayed there up to 1996. He effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of
stated that he was working in Tacloban City when the eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the
alleged rapes happened in the municipality of XXX. offense for which they were convicted and are serving
When he would go home from Tacloban, he would stay sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive
at the house of a certain Fred Antoni. He did not go to application of this Act. They shall be entitled to
the house of AAA as the latter’s parents were his appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their
enemies. He said that he had a quarrel with AAA’s sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be
parents because he did not work with them in the immediately released if they are so qualified under this
ricefields. He further recounted that in July 1999, he was Act or other applicable law.
also living in Tacloban City and worked there as a
dishwasher at a restaurant. He worked there from 1998 People v. Sarcia73 further stressed that "[w]ith more
up to September 1999. The accused-appellant likewise reason, the Act should apply to [a] case wherein the
stated that in August 1999, he was still working at the conviction by the lower court is still under review."
same restaurant in Tacloban City. While working there,
he did not go home to XXX as he was busy with work. Thus, in the matter of assigning criminal responsibility,
He denied that he would have drinking sprees with Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 is explicit in providing
AAA’s stepfather, BBB, because they were enemies. that:

Issue: SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A

child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
Ruling: commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
I. The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.
consider in favor of the accused-appellant the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
Pertinently, the first paragraph of Section 7 of Republic liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which
and Welfare Act of 2006," provides for the rule on how to
120
 AB
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344 puts a limit to
proceedings in accordance with this Act. the application of a suspended sentence, namely,
when the child reaches a maximum age of 21. The
The exemption from criminal liability herein established said provision states:
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforced in accordance with existing laws. SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to
Court. — If the court finds that the objective of the
Accordingly, for the first count of rape, which in the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict
information in Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46 was with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
allegedly committed in 1995, the testimony of the conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
accused-appellant sufficiently established that he was conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
only 13 years old at that time. In view of the failure of the program, the child in conflict with the law shall be
prosecution to prove the exact date and year of the first brought before the court for execution of judgment.
incident of rape, i.e., whether the same occurred in 1995
or in 1998 as previously discussed, any doubt therein If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen
"should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the
more beneficial to the latter."76 The Court, thus, court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
exempts the accused-appellant from criminal liability for accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence,
the first count of rape pursuant to the first paragraph of or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344. The accused- specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
appellant, nevertheless, remains civilly liable therefor. age of twenty-one (21) years.

For the second and third counts of rape that were IV. Nonetheless, the disposition set forth under
committed in the year 1999, the accused-appellant was Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344 is
already 17 years old. We likewise find that in the said warranted in the instant case, to wit:
instances, the accused-appellant acted with
discernment. SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. — A
Verily, AAA testified that she at first did not tell anybody child in conflict with the law may after conviction and
about the sexual assault she suffered at the hands of the upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
accused-appellant because the latter told her that he sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
would kill her mother if she did so. That the accused- institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
appellant had to threaten AAA in an effort to conceal his facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised
dastardly acts only proved that he knew full well that and controlled by the [Bureau of Corrections], in
what he did was wrong and that he was aware of the coordination with the [Department of Social Welfare and
consequences thereof. Development].

Accordant with the second paragraph of Article 68 of the Additionally, the civil liability of the accused-appellant for
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and in conformity the second and third incidents of rape shall not be
with our ruling in Sarcia, when the offender is a minor affected by the above disposition and the same shall be
under eighteen (18) years of age, "the penalty next lower enforced in accordance with law and the
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always pronouncements in the prevailing jurisprudence.
in the proper period. However, for purposes of
determining the proper penalty because of the privileged 28. People vs. Monticalvo
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death
is still the penalty to be reckoned with." Thus, for the Facts: AAA is a mental retardate and was 12 years and
second and third counts of rape, the proper penalty 11 months old at the time of the rape incident.8 She and
imposable upon the accused-appellant is reclusion appellant, who was then 17 years old,9 are neighbors −
perpetua for each count. their respective houses are adjoining each other.

III. Had the trial court correctly appreciated in favor In the afternoon of 9 December 2002, AAA and her
of the accused-appellant the circumstance of his friend, Analiza, were in front of the sari-sari store of
minority, the latter would have been entitled to a AAA’s mother, BBB, while appellant was inside the fence
suspension of sentence for the second and third of their house adjacent to the said sari-sari store.
counts of rape under Section 38 of Republic Act Shortly, thereafter, appellant invited AAA to go with him
No. 9344, which reads: to the kiln at the back of their house. AAA acceded and
went ahead.
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. — Once
the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the Upon seeing appellant and AAA going to the kiln,
time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of Analiza, pretending to look for her one peso coin,
the offense charged, the court shall determine and followed them until she reached a papaya tree located
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from three and a half meters away from the place. Analiza hid
the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing under the papaya tree and from there she saw appellant
the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child undress AAA by removing the latter’s shorts and panty.
in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, Appellant, however, glanced and saw Analiza.
without need of application. Provided, however, That Frightened, Analiza ran away and went back to the sari-
suspension of sentence shall still be supplied even if the sari store of BBB without telling BBB what she saw.
juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Appellant proceeded to satisfy his bestial desire. After
undressing AAA, appellant made her lie down. He then
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the placed himself on top of AAA and made push and pull
various circumstances of the child, the court shall movements. Afterwards, appellant stopped, allowed AAA
impose the appropriate disposition measures as to sit down for a while and then sent her home.
provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juvenile in
Conflict with the Law.1awphi1 When AAA arrived at their house around 7:30 p.m., she
was asked by her mother, BBB, where she came from
Be that as it may, the suspension of sentence may no and why she came home late. AAA replied that she was
longer be applied in the instant case given that the at the back of their house as appellant brought her there
accused-appellant is now about 29 years of age and and had sexual intercourse with her.

121
 AB
The following day, BBB brought AAA to the police station specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
and then to the Northern Samar Provincial Hospital age of twenty-one (21) years. [Emphasis supplied].
where AAA was examined by Dr. Nochete.
At present, appellant is already 27 years of age, and the
Issue: judgment of the trial court was promulgated prior to the
effectivity of Republic Act No. 9344. Therefore, the
Ruling: This Court finds merit in appellant’s assertion application of Sections 38 and 40 of the said law is
that he was a minor during the commission of the crime already moot and academic.
charged.
Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent
During trial, upon order of the trial court, the Local Civil of Republic Act No. 9344, the promotion of the welfare of
Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar, brought before it a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one
their office records, particularly appellant’s Certificate of who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years, so long as
Live Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a
Appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was child.
born on 23 February 1985. Indeed, at the time of the
commission of the crime charged on 9 December 2002, The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of
appellant was only 17 years old, a minor. Thus, he is the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not
entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of material. What matters is that the offender committed the
minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal offense when he/she was still of tender age.76 The
Code, as amended,68 which specifically states that: appellant, therefore, shall be entitled to appropriate
disposition under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344,
ART. 68. – Penalty to be imposed upon a person under which provides for the confinement of convicted children
eighteen years of age. – When the offender is a minor as follows:77
under eighteen years and his case is one coming under
the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. – A
child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and
xxxx upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised
law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.69 and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the
[Emphasis supplied]. DSWD.

On 20 May 2006, Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise To conform to this Court’s ruling in People v.Sarcia,78
known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," the case shall be remanded to the court of origin to effect
took effect. Section 68 thereof specifically provides for its appellant’s confinement in an agricultrual camp or other
retroactive application, thus:72 training facility.

SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are

Serving Sentence. – Persons who have been convicted MITIGATING
and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of
this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18)
CIRCUMSTANCES
years at the time of the commission of the offense for
1. People vs. Jaurigue
which they were convicted and are serving sentence,
shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of
this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions Facts: That both the defendant and appellant Avelina
provided under this Act and their sentences shall be Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the
adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately barrio of Sta. Isabel, City of San Pablo, Province of
released if they are so qualified under this Act or other Laguna; that for sometime prior to the stabbing of the
applicable law. [Emphasis supplied]. deceased by defendant and appellant, in the evening of
September 20, 1942, the former had been courting the
Clearly, Republic Act No. 9344 is applicable in this case latter in vain, and that on one occasion, about one month
even though the crime was committed four (4) years before that fatal night, Amado Capina snatched a
prior to its enactment and effectivity. Parenthetically, with handkerchief belonging to her, bearing her nickname
more reason should Republic Act No. 9344 apply to this "Aveling," while it was being washed by her cousin,
case as the 2005 conviction by the lower courts was still Josefa Tapay.
under review when the law took effect in 2006.73
On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 warrants the dog under her house, Amado approached her and spoke
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he
notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
majority at the time the judgment of conviction is touched her breasts, on account of which Avelina,
pronounced. resolute and quick-tempered girl, slapped Amado, gave
him fist blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to
However, while Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 herself, until the following morning when she informed
provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a
even if the child in conflict with the law is already long fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the protection.
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same
law limits the said suspension of sentence until the said On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed
child reaches the maximum age of 21. up the house of defendant and appellant, and
surreptitiously entered the room where she was
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the
(18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for
court shall determine whether to discharge the child in help, which awakened her parents and brought them to
accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden
or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of
Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, asking for forgiveness; and
122
 AB
when Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat Amado, electric lights, and there were already several people,
her husband prevented her from doing so, stating that about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own
Amado probably did not realize what he was doing. father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of
Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro the organization; and under the circumstances, there
Lozada, and for Amado's parents, the following morning. was and there could be no possibility of her being
Amado's parents came to the house of Nicolas Jaurigue raped. And when she gave Amado Capina a thrust at
and apologized for the misconduct of their son; and as
the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a
Nicolas Jaurigue was then angry, he told them to end the
mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing his death a few
conversation, as he might not be able to control himself.
moments later, the means employed by her in the
In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and
information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the under the facts and circumstances of the case, she
neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person cannot be legally declared completely exempt from
and that she had even asked him to elope with her and criminal liability.
that if he should not marry her, she would take poison;
and that Avelina again received information of Amado's Art. 11 [1] Requisites:
bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same i. Unlawful aggression;
day. ii. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, iii. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
September 20, 1942, Nicolas Jaurigue went to the person defending himself.
chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was
the treasurer, in their barrio, just across the provincial But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately
road from his house, to attend religious services, and sat and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to
on the front bench facing the altar with the other officials the barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having
of the organization and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro stabbed the deceased, immediately after the
Lozada. Inside the chapel it was quite bright as there
incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly
were electric lights.
thereafter and to remain there subject to the order of
Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the the said barrio lieutenant, an agent of the authorities
chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the (Art. 13[7]); and the further fact that she had acted in
purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the the immediate vindication of a grave offense
bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado committed against her (Art. 13[5]) a few moments
Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon before, and upon such provocation as to produce
observing the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of
Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting reason and self-control, (Art. 13[6]) should be
and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor.
Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand
on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not
highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado Capina, intended to kill the deceased but merely wanted to
Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and punish his offending hand with her knife, (Art. 13[3])
honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one
marked Exhibit B, which she had in a pocket of her single wound. And this is another mitigating
dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's offending circumstance which should be considered in her favor.
hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she
quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Penalty: In accordance with the provisions of Article 69
Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, of the Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a
inflicting upon him a wound about 4 1/2 inches deep, reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be
which was necessarily mortal. Nicolas Jaurigue, who imposed upon her. And considering the circumstances
was seated on one of the front benches, saw Amado of the instant case, the defendant and appellant should
bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon
be accorded the most liberal consideration possible
seeing his daughter still holding the bloody knife, he
under the law.
approached her and asked: "Why did you do that," and
answering him Avelina said: "Father, I could not endure The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal
anymore." Amado Capina died from the wound a few for the crime of homicide; and if it should be reduced
minutes later. Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada, who
by two degrees, the penalty to be imposed in the
was also in the same chapel, approached Avelina and
instant case is that of prision correccional; and
asked her why she did that, and Avelina surrendered
herself, saying: "Kayo na po ang bahala sa aquin," pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 4103
meaning: "I hope you will take care of me," or more of the Philippine Legislature, known as the Indeterminate
correctly, "I place myself at your disposal." Sentence Law, herein defendant and appellant should
be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
Issue: arresto mayor in its medium degree, to prision
correccional in its medium degree. Consequently, with
Ruling: In the mind of the court, there is not the least the modification of judgment appealed from, defendant
doubt that, in stabbing to death the deceased Amado and appellant Avelina Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to
Capina, in the manner and form and under the an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and
circumstances above indicated, the defendant and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years,
appellant committed the crime of homicide, with no four months, and one day of prision correccional, as
aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by
least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amado
character to be considered in her favor. Capina, in the sum of P2,000, and to suffer the
According to the facts established by the evidence and corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed
found by the learned trial court in this case, when the 1/3 of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency, and to
deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on pay the costs. Defendant and appellant should also be
the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and given the benefit of 1/2 of her preventive imprisonment,
placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, and the knife marked Exhibit B ordered confiscated.
without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with Other Notes:
123
 AB
ISLAW Meanwhile, the subdivision was ordered and a public
land surveyor did the actual survey in 1941 but the
I. SPL survey report was not submitted until 1946 because of
a. Maximum – shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the outbreak of the second world war. According to the
law; survey, only 300 hectares Identified as Lots Nos. 22, 26
b. Minimum – shall not be less than the minimum and 38, Ps. 176 Kiamba, were set aside for Sales
prescribed by law Application No. 21983, while the rest were subdivided
into sublots of 5 to 6 hectares each to be distributed
II. RPC among the settlers (pp. 32-33, G.R. No. L-45504).
a. Maximum – in view of attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed The 300 hectares set aside for the sales application of
b. Minimum – within the range of the penalty next Fleischer and Company was declared open for
lower to that prescribed by the RPC disposition, appraised and advertised for public auction.
At the public auction held in Manila on August 14, 1948,
 Mitigating or aggravating circumstances - Fleischer and Company was the only bidder for
required to be considered only in the imposition of P6,000.00. But because of protests from the settlers the
the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence corresponding award in its favor was held in abeyance,
while an investigator was sent by the Director of Lands
to Kiamba in the person of Atty. Jose T. Gozon Atty.
2. People vs. Narvaez Gozon came back after ten days with an amicable
Facts: At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, settlement signed by the representative of the settlers.
1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez This amicable settlement was later repudiated by the
together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and settlers, but the Director of Lands, acting upon the report
Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George of Atty. Gozon, approved the same and ordered the
Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. The place formal award of the land in question to Fleischer and
was in the boundary of the highway and the hacienda Company. The settlers appealed to the Secretary of
owned by George Fleischer. This is located in the Agriculture and Natural Resources, who, however,
municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato. At the place of affirmed the decision in favor of the company.
the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant On May 29, 1950, the settlers filed Civil Case No. 240 in
Mamerto Narvaez (pp. 179-182, t.s.n., Pieza II). At that the CFI of Cotabato which then consisted only of one
time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard sala, for the purpose of annulling the order of the
that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources which
arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the
fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from contested land to the company. The settlers as plaintiffs,
getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. So lost that case in view of the amicable settlement which
he addressed the group, saying 'Pare, if possible you they had repudiated as resulting from threats and
stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and fraudulent
over what is good,' addressing the deceased Rubia, who machination on the part of the company. They appealed
is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer, to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 28858-R) which
however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' likewise affirmed on August 16, 1965 the decision of the
Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his CFI in favor of the company.
gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell
down, Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is This resulted in the ouster of the settlers by an order of
a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise the CFI dated September 24, 1966, from the land which
hitting him (pp. 127-133, t.s.n., Defense transcript). Both they had been occupying for about 30 years. Among
Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of the shotting' (pp. those ejected was the appellant who, to avoid trouble,
9-14, t.s.n., Pieza I, pp. 8-9, Appellant's Brief, p.161, voluntarily dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost
rec.). of around P20,000.00, and transferred to his other house
which he built in 1962 or 1963 near the highway. The
It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with second house is not far from the site of the dismantled
the long drawn out legal battle between the Fleischer house. Its ground floor has a store operated by Mrs.
and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer was the June Talens who was renting a portion thereof. He also
secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant transferred his store from his former residence to the
manager, on the one hand, and the land settlers of house near the highway. Aside from the store, he also
Cotabato, among whom was appellant. had a rice mill located about 15 meters east of the house
Background: and a concrete pavement between the rice mill and the
house, which is used for drying grains and copra.
Appellant (Narvaez) was among those persons from
northern and central Luzon who went to Mindanao in On November 14, 1966, appellant was among the
1937 and settled in Maitum, a former sitio of Kiamba and settlers on whose behalf Jose V. Gamboa and other
now a separate municipality of South Cotabato. He leaders filed Civil Case No. 755 in the CFI of Cotabato,
established his residence therein, built his house, Branch I. to obtain an injunction or annulment of the
cultivated the area, and was among those who petitioned order of award with prayer for preliminary injunction.
then President Manuel L. Quezon to order the During the pendency of this case, appellant on February
subdivision of the defunct Celebes Plantation and nearby 21, 1967 entered into a contract of lease with the
Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for company whereby he agreed to lease an area of
distribution among the settlers. approximately 100 to 140 square meters of Lot No. 38
from the company (Exh. 9, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits for
Shortly thereafter, Fleischer and Company, headed by Defense) for a consideration of P16.00 monthly.
George W. Fleischer, an American landowner in Negros According to him, he signed the contract although the
Oriental, filed sales application No. 21983 on June 3, ownership of the land was still uncertain, in order to
1937 over the same area formerly leased and later avoid trouble, until the question of ownership could be
abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company, covering decided. He never paid the agreed rental, although he
1,017.2234 hectares. alleges that the milling job they did for Rubia was

124
 AB
considered payment. On June 25, 1968, deceased Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in
Fleischer wrote him a letter with the following tenor: his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he
shall be protected in or restored to said possession by
You have not paid six months rental to Fleischers & Co., the means established by the laws and the Rules of
Inc. for that portion of land in which your house and Court (Articles 536 and 539, Civil Code of the
ricemill are located as per agreement executed on Philippines).
February 21, 1967. You have not paid as as even after
repeated attempts of collection made by Mr. Flaviano at the time of the incident on August 22, 1968, Civil Case
Rubia and myself. no. 755 for annulment of the order of award to Fleischer
and Company was still pending in the CFI of Cotabato.
In view of the obvious fact that you do not comply with The parties could not have known that the case would be
the agreement, I have no alternative but to terminate our dismissed over a year after the incident on August 22,
agreement on this date. 1968, as it was dismissed on January 23, 1970 on
I am giving you six months to remove your house, ground of res judicata, in view of the dismissal in 1965
ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps from the land (by the Court of Appeals) of Civil Case No. 240 filed in
of Fleischers & Co., Inc. This six- month period shall 1950 for the annulment of the award to the company,
expire on December 31, 1966. between the same parties, which the company won by
virtue of the compromise agreement in spite of the
In the event the above constructions have not been subsequent repudiation by the settlers of said
removed within the six- month period, the company shall compromise agreement; and that such 1970 dismissal
cause their immediate demolition (Exhibit 10, p. 2, also carried the dismissal of the supplemental petition
supra). filed by the Republic of the Philippines on November 28,
1968 to annul the sales patent and to cancel the
On August 21, 1968, both deceased, together with their
corresponding certificate of title issued to the company,
laborers, commenced fencing Lot 38 by putting bamboo
on the ground that the Director of Lands had no authority
posts along the property line parallel to the highway.
to conduct the sale due to his failure to comply with the
Some posts were planted right on the concrete drier of
mandatory requirements for publication. The dismissal of
appellant, thereby cutting diagonally across its center
the government's supplemental petition was premised on
(pp. 227-228, t.s.n., Vol. 2), with the last post just
the ground that after its filing on November 28, 1968,
adjacent to appellant's house (p. 231, t.s.n., supra). The
nothing more was done by the petitioner Republic of the
fence, when finished, would have the effect of shutting
Philippines except to adopt all the evidence and
off the accessibility to appellant's house and rice mill
arguments of plaintiffs with whom it joined as parties-
from the highway, since the door of the same opens to
plaintiffs.
the Fleischers' side. The fencing continued on that
fateful day of August 22, 1968, with the installation of Hence, it is reasonable to believe that appellant was
four strands of barbed wire to the posts. indeed hoping for a favorable judgment in Civil Case No.
755 filed on November 14, 1966 and his execution of the
At about 2:30 p.m. on the said day, appellant who was
contract of lease on February 21, 1967 was just to avoid
taking a nap after working on his farm all morning, was
trouble. This was explained by him during cross-
awakened by some noise as if the wall of his house was
examination on January 21, 1970, thus:
being chiseled. Getting up and looking out of the
window, he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer It happened this way: we talked it over with my Mrs. that
was indeed chiseling the wall of his house with a we better rent the place because even though we do not
crowbar (p. 129, t.s.n., Vol. 6), while deceased Rubia know who really owns this portion to avoid trouble. To
was nailing the barbed wire and deceased Fleischer was avoid trouble we better pay while waiting for the case
commanding his laborers. The jeep used by the because at that time, it was not known who is the right
deceased was parked on the highway. The rest of the owner of the place. So we decided until things will clear
incident is narrated in the People's Brief as above- up and determine who is really the owner, we decided to
quoted. Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter, pay rentals (p. 169, t.s.n., Vol.6).
bringing with him shotgun No. 1119576 and claiming he
shot two persons (Exh. Pp. 31, Defense Exhibits). In any case, Fleischer had given him up to December
31, 1968 (Exh.10, p. 2, Defense Exhibits) within which to
Issue: vacate the land. He should have allowed appellant the
peaceful enjoyment of his properties up to that time,
Ruling:
instead of chiseling the walls of his house and closing
I. Incomplete Self-Defense appellant's entrance and exit to the highway.

b. Reasonable necessity
a. Unlawful Aggression
The reasonableness of the resistance is also a
The deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-
to appellant's house, nor to close his accessibility to the defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 of
highway while he was pleading with them to stop and Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the appellant fired
talk things over with him. The assault on appellant's his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his
property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as resistance was disproportionate to the attack.
contemplated by law.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation
The following provisions of the Civil Code of the
Philippines are in point: We find, however, that the third element of defense of
property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient provocation on
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired the part of appellant who was defending his property. As
through force or intimidation as long as there is a a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all on his
possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened
has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding by the noise produced by the victims and their laborers.
of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court, if His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk
the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. things over with him was no provocation at all.

125
 AB
Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the deceased Kidapawan to help him "pray over" Wapili, but they could
was not justifiable, since not all the elements for not enter the latter's room as he became wild and
justification are present. He should therefore be held violent. Suddenly, Wapili bolted out of his room naked
responsible for the death of his victims, but he could be and chased Leydan. Thereafter, Leydan with the aid of
credited with the special mitigating circumstance of two (2) of his neighbors attempted to tie Wapili with a
incomplete defense, pursuant to paragraph 6, Article 13 rope but was unsuccessful as Wapili was much bigger in
of the Revised Penal Code. built and stronger than anyone of them.4 Wapili, who
appeared to have completely gone crazy, kept on
II. Voluntary Surrender running without any particular direction.
But the trial court has properly appreciated the presence Thus, Leydan went to the house of policewoman Norma
of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, it Plando, a neighbor, and asked for assistance. As Wapili
appearing that appellant surrendered to the authorities passed by the house of Plando, he banged Plando's
soon after the shooting. vehicle parked outside. Using a hand-held radio, Plando
III. Passion and obfuscation then contacted SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto
Espadera and SPO2 Crispin Pillo, all members of the
Likewise, we find that passion and obfuscation attended PNP assigned to secure the premises of the nearby
the commission of the crime. Roman Catholic Church of Kidapawan.5
The appellant awoke to find his house being damaged At around four o'clock in the morning of the same day,
and its accessibility to the highway as well as of his rice SPO1 Ulep together with SPO1 Espadera and SPO2
mill bodega being closed. Not only was his house being Pillo arrived at the scene on board an Anfra police
unlawfully violated; his business was also in danger of service jeep. The three (3) police officers, all armed with
closing down for lack of access to the highway. These M-16 rifles, alighted from the jeep when they saw the
circumstances, coming so near to the time when his first naked Wapili approaching them. The kind of weapon
house was dismantled, thus forcing him to transfer to his Wapili was armed with is disputed. The police claimed
only remaining house, must have so aggravated his that he was armed with a bolo and a rattan stool, while
obfuscation that he lost momentarily all reason causing Wapili's relatives and neighbors said he had no bolo, but
him to reach for his shotgun and fire at the victims in only a rattan stool.
defense of his rights.
SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili
Considering the antecedent facts of this case, where to put down his weapons or they would shoot him. But
appellant had thirty years earlier migrated to this so- Wapili retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing
called "land of promise" with dreams and hopes of towards the police officers. When Wapili was only about
relative prosperity and tranquility, only to find his castle two (2) to three (3) meters away from them, SPO1 Ulep
crumbling at the hands of the deceased, his shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various
dispassionate plea going unheeded-all these could be parts of his body. As the victim slumped to the ground,
too much for any man-he should be credited with this SPO1 Ulep came closer and pumped another bullet into
mitigating circumstance. his head and literally blew his brains out.6
Penalty: Consequently, appellant is guilty of two crimes Issue:
of homicide only, the killing not being attended by any
qualifying nor aggravating circumstance, but extenuated Ruling:
by the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete I. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
defense-in view of the presence of unlawful aggression fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a
on the part of the victims and lack of sufficient right
provocation on the part of the appellant-and by two
generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender We find in favor of accused-appellant the incomplete
and passion and obfuscation. justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or lawful
exercise of a right. Under Art. 69 of The Revised Penal
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the Code, "a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
penalty for homicide as reclusion temporal. Pursuant to prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not
Article 69, supra, the penalty lower by one or two wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Arts.
conditions required to justify the same. Considering that 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions
the majority of the requirements for defense of property be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
are present, the penalty may be lowered by two degrees, period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
i.e., to prision correccional And under paragraph 5 of number and nature of the conditions of exemption
Article 64, the same may further be reduced by one present or lacking."
degree, i.e., arresto mayor, because of the presence of
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty
circumstance. under Art. 11, par. 5, of The Revised Penal Code may be
successfully invoked, the accused must prove the
3. People vs. Ulep presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted in
Facts: At around two o' clock in the morning of 22 the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
December 1995 Buenaventura Wapili was having a high right or an office, and that the injury caused or the
fever and was heard talking insensibly to himself in his offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
room. His brother-in-law, Dario Leydan, convinced him to due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
come out of his room and talk to him, but Wapili told right or office. The second requisite is lacking in the
Leydan that he could not really understand himself. After instant case.
a while, Wapili went back to his room and turned off the Accused-appellant and the other police officers involved
lights. Moments later, the lights went on again and originally set out to perform a legal duty: to render police
Leydan heard a disturbance inside the room, as if Wapili assistance, and restore peace and order at Mundog
was smashing the furniture.3 Unable to pacify Wapili, Subdivision where the victim was then running amuck.
Leydan called Pastor Bonid of the Alliance Church of
126
 AB
There were two (2) stages of the incident at Mundog correccional, in any of its periods, the range of which is
Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim threatened six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
the safety of the police officers by menacingly advancing
towards them, notwithstanding accused-appellant's 4. Guillermo vs. People
previous warning shot and verbal admonition to the Facts:
victim to lay down his weapon or he would be shot. As a
police officer, it is to be expected that accused-appellant Version of the Prosecution
would stand his ground. Up to that point, his decision to
Vicente Alon averred that at 5:40 in the afternoon of July
respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's
21, 1996, Winnie Alon, Wilfredo Cabison, Eddie Roque,
further advance was justified under the circumstances.
and him [sic] were at the public market of Cuartero, at
After all, a police officer is not required to afford the
[sic] the restaurant of Melecio Heyres to eat. Noel
victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he
Guillermo, Arnel Socias, and Joemar Palma were at the
expected - when hard pressed and in the heat of such an
restaurant drinking beer. Noel Guillermo and Arnel
encounter at close quarters - to pause for a long moment
Socias are known to him since childhood since they
and reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after each blow to
come from the same barangay. Joemar Palma is known
determine the effects thereof.
to him only recently in that incident.
However, while accused-appellant is to be commended
While sitting at the table inside the restaurant, an
for promptly responding to the call of duty when he
altercation between Arnel Socias and Winnie Alon
stopped the victim from his potentially violent conduct
regarding the cutting of wood by a chain saw [sic]
and aggressive behavior, he cannot be exonerated from
transpired. Noel Guillermo suddenly took hold of Winnie
overdoing his duty during the second stage of the
Alon and stabbed the latter at the neck three (3) times.
incident - when he fatally shot the victim in the head,
Joemar Palma went to the kitchen and got a knife. Arnel
perhaps in his desire to take no chances, even after the
Socias hit him with a bottle of beer by [sic] the head. He
latter slumped to the ground due to multiple gunshot
fell down and lost consciousness. [Footnotes referring to
wounds sustained while charging at the police officers.
the pertinent parts of the record supplied]
Sound discretion and restraint dictated that accused-
appellant, a veteran policeman,11 should have ceased Significantly, Vicente admitted on cross-examination that
firing at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to he and Winnie were already drunk even before they
the ground. The victim at that point no longer posed a went to the restaurant where the stabbing took place.
threat and was already incapable of mounting an
aggression against the police officers. Shooting him in Eddie corroborated the testimony of Vicente on material
the head was obviously unnecessary. As succinctly points, particularly on the state of their intoxication even
observed by the trial court - before going to the scene of the stabbing.

Once he saw the victim he fired a warning shot then shot Version of the Defense
the victim hitting him on the different parts of the body
Noel Guillermo testified that at 5:30 in the afternoon of
causing him to fall to the ground and in that position the
July 21, 1996, he was in Cuartero at the restaurant of
accused shot the victim again hitting the back portion of
Melecio Heyres, husband of Gertrudes Heyres, together
the victim's head causing the brain to scatter on the
with Arnel Socias and Joemar Palma drinking beer,
ground x x x x the victim, Buenaventura Wapili, was
consuming only about half a bottle, when Winnie Alon,
already on the ground. Therefore, there was no
Eddie Roque, Vicente Alon, and Wilfredo Cabison
necessity for the accused to pump another shot on the
arrived and ordered beer from Babylou Felipe. Winnie
back portion of the victim's head.
Alon came to him and requested to join them in their
It cannot therefore be said that the fatal wound in the table which he affirmatively answered. Winnie Alon then
head of the victim was a necessary consequence of had an altercation with Arnel Socias regarding "labtik"
accused-appellant's due performance of a duty or the (string used in marking wood to be cut).24
lawful exercise of a right or office.
Winnie Alon challenged Arnel Socias to a contest on
II. Voluntary surrender clean or straight cutting of wood. Arnel declined the
challenge claiming that he is only an assistant to his
We likewise credit in favor of accused-appellant the brother-in-law. Winnie Alon got angry and told him that
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The he has long been in [the] chain saw [sic] business but
police blotter of Kidapawan Municipal Police Station "you’re stupid" ("gago ka!"). Arnel responded: "If the
shows that immediately after killing Wapili, accused- wood is crooked and you would deviate from line, you’re
appellant reported to the police headquarters and stupid."25
voluntarily surrendered himself.
Winnie Alon suddenly stood up and said to Arnel: "Don’t
Penalty: Article 249 of The Revised Penal Code ever call me stupid," pointing his finger to Arnel. He told
prescribes for the crime of homicide the penalty of them to settle the matter peacefully as they are friend
reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12) [sic], but Winnie Alon was so furious and grabbed Arnel
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. There being Socias by the collar. Arnel tried to release the hold of
an incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a Winnie from his collar. While he was pacifying the two
duty, the penalty should be one (1) degree lower, i.e., telling them to settle the matter peacefully, Winnie Alon
from reclusion temporal to prision mayor, pursuant to Art. turned to him and said: "you also," then struck him with a
69, in relation to Art. 61, par. 2, and Art. 71, of the Code, beer bottle. He was hit at the right top of his head thrice.
to be imposed in its minimum period since accused- He stood up and boxed Winnie who again picked up a
appellant voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and bottle break [sic] it against the wall, and struck him with
there was no aggravating circumstance to offset this the broken bottle. He stepped back, pulled his knife, and
mitigating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate stabbed him three (3) times but cannot remember what
Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty shall be part of his body was hit by his successive stabs.
taken from the minimum period of prision mayor, the
range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to eight Issue:
(8) years, while the minimum shall be taken from the
Ruling: As the lower courts did, we do not recognize
penalty next lower in degree which is prision
that the petitioner fully acted in self-defense.
127
 AB
I. Incomplete self-defense Fourth, and as the CA aptly observed as well, the knife
wounds were all aimed at vital parts of the body, thus
As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be pointing against a conclusion that the petitioner was
complete or incomplete. It is complete when all the three simply warding off broken beer bottle thrusts and used
essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when his knife as a means commensurate to the thrusts he
the mandatory element of unlawful aggression by the avoided. To be precise, the petitioner inflicted on the
victim is present, plus any one of the two essential victim: one stab wound at the chest, 6-8 cms. deep, at
requisites.42 the 5th rib clavicular area, or in plainer terms, in the area
a. Unlawful aggression of the victim’s heart; another was at the neck, 5 cms.
deep, just above the breastbone; and a last one was in
In the present case, we find it beyond dispute that the the abdominal area, 3-5 cms. deep. The depth of these
victim Winnie started the fight that ended in his death; he wounds shows the force exerted in the petitioner’s
struck the petitioner on the head when the latter thrusts while the locations are indicative that the thrusts
intervened to pacify the quarrel between Winnie and were all meant to kill, not merely to disable the victim
Arnaldo. In short, the victim was the unlawful aggressor and thereby avoid his drunken thrusts.
while the petitioner was in the lawful act of pacifying the
quarreling parties; thus, the latter has in his favor the In sum, we rule that there was no rational equivalence
element of unlawful aggression by the victim. between the means of the attack and the means of
defense sufficient to characterize the latter as
b. Lack of sufficient provocation reasonable.
We consider it also established that the petitioner did not Penalty: Since the petitioner’s plea of self-defense lacks
provoke the fight that ensued; he was a third party to the only the element of "reasonable means," the petitioner
quarrel between the original protagonists – Winnie and is, therefore, entitled to the privileged mitigating
Arnaldo – and did not at all initiate any provocation to circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Consequently,
ignite the quarrel. Thus, the petitioner also has the the penalty for homicide may be lowered by one or two
element of lack of sufficient provocation in his favor. degrees, at the discretion of the court.
c. Reasonable necessity The penalty which the RTC imposed and which the CA
affirmed lowered the penalty of reclusion temporal by
The third element – the reasonableness of the means to
one degree, which yields the penalty of prision mayor.
repel the aggression – is the critical element that the
From this penalty, the maximum of the indeterminate
lower courts found lacking in the petitioner’s case.
penalty is determined by taking into account the
Generally, reasonableness is a function of the nature or
attendant modifying circumstances, applying Article 64 of
severity of the attack or aggression confronting the
the Revised Penal Code. Since no aggravating nor
accused, the means employed to repel this attack, the
mitigating circumstance intervened, the maximum of the
surrounding circumstances of the attack such as its
indeterminate penalty shall be prision mayor in its
place and occasion, the weapons used, and the physical
medium period whose range is from 8 years and 1 day to
condition of the parties – which, when viewed as material
10 years.
considerations, must show rational equivalence between
the attack and the defense.43 In People v. Escarlos,44 To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty,
this Court held that the means employed by a person prision mayor has to be reduced by one degree without
invoking self-defense must be reasonably taking into account the attendant modifying
commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack circumstances. The penalty lower by one degree is
sought to be averted. In Sienes v. People,45 we prision correccional whose range is from 6 months and 1
considered the nature and number of wounds inflicted on day to 6 years. The trial court is given the widest
the victim as important indicia material to a plea for self- discretion to fix the minimum of the indeterminate
defense. penalty provided that such penalty is within the range of
prision correccional.
First, there is intrinsic disproportion between a Batangas
knife and a broken beer bottle. Although this 5. People vs. Ural
disproportion is not conclusive and may yield a contrary
conclusion depending on the circumstances, we mention Facts:
this disproportionality because we do not believe that the Version of the Prosecution
circumstances of the case dictate a contrary conclusion.
The judgment of conviction was based on the testimony
Second, physical evidence shows that the petitioner of Brigido Alberto, a twenty-six-year-old former detention
suffered only one contusion hematoma at the parietal prisoner in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur. He had been
area above the left ear. Unless the three (3) beer bottle accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9,
blows that the petitioner alleged all landed on the same 1966 after posting bail. He went to Barrio Camongo,
site – a situation that could have incapacitated the Dumalinao where his father resided. On July 31, 1966,
petitioner – the more plausible conclusion from the he intended to go to his residence at Barrio Upper
physical evidence is that the petitioner received only one Lamari, Buug but night overtook him in the town. He
blow, not three as he claimed. Contrary to what the decided to sleep in the Buug municipal building where
petitioner wishes to imply, he could not have been a there would be more security.
defender reeling from successive head blows inflicted by
the victim. Upon arrival in the municipal building at around eight
o'clock, he witnessed an extraordinary occurrence. He
Third, the victim, Vicente, and Eddie, were already drunk saw Policeman Ural (with whom he was already
when they arrived at the restaurant before the fatal fight. acquainted) inside the jail. Ural was boxing the detention
This state of intoxication, while not critically material to prisoner, Felix Napola. As a consequence of the fistic
the stabbing that transpired, is still material for purposes blows, Napola collapsed on the floor. Ural, the tormentor,
of defining its surrounding circumstances, particularly the stepped on his prostrate body.
fact that a broken beer bottle might not have been a
potent weapon in the hands of a drunk wielder. 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
128
 AB
match and left the cell. Napola screamed in agony. He the private complainant was driving a maroon Toyota FX
shouted for help. Nobody came to succor him. with his pregnant wife Feliber Andres, his two year old
son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law,
Much perturbed by the barbarity which he had just seen, Francar Valdez. At the intersection near the Garden of
Alberto left the municipal building. Before his departure, Remembrance, while the accused-appellant Gonzalez
Ural cautioned him: "You better keep quiet of what I was turning left towards the exit and the complainant
have done" (sic). Alberto did not sleep anymore that Noel Andres was headed straight along the road to the
night. From the municipal building, he went to the exit their two vehicles almost collided. Noel Andres was
crossing, where the cargo trucks passed. He hitchhiked able to timely step on the brakes. The appellant
in a truck hauling iron ore and went home. continued driving along his way while Noel Andres drove
Version of the Defense behind the appellant’s vehicle for some time and cut him
off when he found the opportunity to do so.1 Noel
His story is that at around nine o'clock in the evening of Andres then got out of his vehicle and knocked on the
July 31, 1966 he was in the municipal jail on guard duty. appellant’s car window.2 This is as far as their versions
He heard a scream for help from Napola. He entered the of the incident coincide.
cell and found Napola's shirt in flames. With the
assistance of Ernesto Ogoc and Anecio Siton, Ural Version of the Prosecution
removed Napola's shirt. Ural did not summon a doctor The prosecution’s version of the incident is that Noel
because, according to Napola, the burns were not Andres calmly told the appellant to be careful with his
serious. Besides, he (Ural) was alone in the municipal driving and informed the latter that he, Andres, is with his
building. family and to this Gonzalez allegedly replied, "Accidents
Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, whom the are accidents, what’s your problem." Andres stated that
trial court branded "as a complete liar", testified that she he saw the appellant turning red in anger so he decided
heard Napola's scream for help. She saw that Napola's to go back to his vehicle when he was blocked by the
shirt was burning but she did not know how it happened appellant’s son who said, "Anong problema mo sa erpat
to be burned. She said that Ural and Siton removed the ko." Andres testified that he felt threatened and so he
shirt of Napola and put out the fire. immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the driver’s seat,
closed the door, and partially opened the car window just
Teofilo Matugas, a policeman, declared that he was wide enough to talk back to appellant’s son, Dino.
relieved as guard by Ural at eight-thirty in the evening of Suddenly, one of his passengers said "Binaril kami". He
July 31st. Matugas denied that Alberto was in the turned to his wife Feliber Andres and saw her bloodied
municipal building at eight o'clock. and unconscious. He turned around and saw his son
Kenneth and nephew Kevin were also wounded. Andres
Issue:
admitted in court that he and Dino were shouting at each
Ruling: The crime committed by appellant Ural was other so that he did not hear the shot. Andres then got
murder by means of fire (incendio) (Par. 3, Art. 248, out of his vehicle to warn the appellant not to flee. He
Revised Penal Code; People vs. Masin, 64 Phil. 757; then took the wounded members of his family to the exit
U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, 432, 440).3 where there was an ambulance standing by. The three
were then taken to the Sta. Monica Hospital and were
The trial court correctly held that the accused took later transferred to the Quezon City Medical Center.
advantage of his public position (Par. 1, Art. 14, Revised
Penal Code). He could not have maltreated Napola if he Version of the Defense
was not a policeman on guard duty. Because of his
The defense’s version of the incident is that Andres cut
position, he had access to the cell where Napola was
the appellant’s path by positioning his FX obliquely along
confined. The prisoner was under his custody.
the appellant’s lane from the latter’s left side. Andres
I. No intention to commit so grave a wrong then got out of his vehicle, stood beside the appellant’s
car window, and repeatedly cursed the appellant,
The trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating "Putang ina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na hindi ka pa
circumstance "that the offender had no intention to marunong magmaneho. Ang bobo-bobo mo." The
commit so grave a wrong as that committed" (Par. 3, Art. appellant stayed inside his car and allegedly replied,
13, Revised Penal Code). "Pasensiya ka na hindi kita nakita, nasilaw ako.
Aksidente lang." The appellant Gonzalez and another
It is manifest from the proven facts that appellant Ural
witness for the defense, Quidic, testified that Noel
had no intent to kill Napola. His design was only to
Andres went back to his vehicle to move it in such a way
maltreat him may be because in his drunken condition
that it is straight in front of the appellant’s car. Andres
he was making a nuisance of himself inside the
allegedly got out of his vehicle again and continued
detention cell. When Ural realized the fearful
shouting and cursing at the appellant.4 Dino, the
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to
appellant’s son, who rode in another vehicle decided to
secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
go back when he did not see his father’s car behind him.
Penalty: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong When Dino arrived at the scene he confronted Andres
offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse and the two had an altercation. Both Dino and the
of his official position. The trial court properly imposed appellant stated that Andres remained outside his
the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium vehicle during the altercation with Dino. When Andres
period of the penalty for murder (Arts. 64[4] and 248, suddenly reached for something inside his vehicle, Dino
Revised Penal Code). froze on the spot where he stood. This prompted the
appellant to get his gun from the glove compartment and
6. People vs. Gonzales feeling that his son was threatened he got out of his car
ready to shoot. When he saw that Andres did not have a
Facts: In the afternoon of October 31, 1998 at about
weapon he put down his hand holding the gun. This is
2:30 p.m. both the families of the private complainant
when the appellant’s daughter Trisha who was riding in
Noel Andres and that of the accused-appellant Inocencio
Dino’s car arrived at the scene, walked past Dino and
Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola
Andres, and pushed the appellant away. She hugged her
Memorial Park. The appellant was driving a white Isuzu
father and, in the process, held his hand holding the gun.
Esteem with his grandson and three housemaids, while
The appellant tried to free his hand and with Trisha’s
129
 AB
substantial body weight pushing against him the This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a
appellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally fired. notable disparity between the means employed by the
The accused stated that he did not know he shot accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime
somebody until the private complainant’s sister-in-law, committed. The intention of the accused at the time of
Francar Valdez, got out of the vehicle carrying a the commission of the crime is manifested from the
bloodied small boy. The defense claims that the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the
appellant did not try to flee and even told the injury sustained by the victim.54
complainant’s sister-in-law to take the wounded to the
hospital. The appellant’s use of a gun, although not deliberately
sought nor employed in the shooting, should have
Issue: reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible
consequences of his act. The use of a gun is sufficient to
Ruling: produce the resulting crimes committed.

Penalty: For the death of Feliber Andres, and in the

I. Voluntary surrender
absence of any mitigating circumstance, the appellant is
The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, hereby sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8
passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a years and 1 day of prision mayor, in its medium period,
relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, as minimum to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved temporal in its medium period, as maximum. For each
and none can be considered in the imposition of count of the slight physical injuries committed against
penalties. The testimony of prosecution witness Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is
contradicts the appellant’s pretense of voluntary hereby sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor in its
surrender. Witness Ramos testified that the appellant medium period.
drove away towards the gate of the memorial park while
The rules on the imposition of penalties for complex
he was questioning him after the shooting and had not
crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code are not
Noel Andres and onlookers blocked his path the
applicable in this case. Art. 48 applies if a single act
appellant could have fled the scene of the crime. 51
constitutes two or more grave and less grave felonies or
II. Passion and obfuscation when an offense is a necessary means of committing
another; in such a case, the penalty for the most serious
The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation offense shall be imposed in its maximum period. Art. 9 of
is also not obtaining. the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 25 defines
grave felonies as those to which the law attaches the
For this mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must
capital punishment or afflictive penalties from reclusion
be shown that (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce
perpetua to prision mayor; less grave felonies are those
passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended
to which the law attaches a penalty which in its
victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a
maximum period falls under correctional penalties; and
reasonable length of time from the commission of the
light felonies are those punishable by arresto menor or
unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the
fine not exceeding two hundred pesos. Considering that
accused’s mind; and that (3) "the passion and
the offenses committed by the act of the appellant of
obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a
firing a single shot are one count of homicide, a grave
spirit of lawlessness or revenge".52
felony, and two counts of slight physical injuries, a light
Noel Andres’ act of shouting at the appellant’s son, who felony, the rules on the imposition of penalties for
was then a nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to complex crimes, which requires two or more grave
produce passion and obfuscation as it is claimed by the and/or less grave felonies, will not apply.
accused. Besides, the appellant’s son, Dino was
7. People vs. Pagal
shouting back at Noel Andres. It was not a case wherein
the appellant’s son appeared helpless and oppressed Facts: Guan had in his employ Pagal and Torcelino.
that the appellant lost his reason and shot at the FX of Guan supposedly maltreated Pagal and Torcelino during
Noel Andres. The same holds true for the appellant’s their employment. Pagal and Torcelino sought to rob
claim of provocation on the part of Noel Andres. Guan, but Guan would not open the kaha de yero.
Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to Because of Guan’s resistance, the two resorted to
commit the wrong committed and that the provocation violence, stabbed Guan with an icepick, and clubbed him
must be commensurate to the crime committed. The with an iron pipe. The beating later caused Guan’s
sufficiency of provocation varies according to the death. The two got approximately P1,000 from the event.
circumstances of the case.53 The aggressive behavior of
Noel Andres towards the appellant and his son may be In Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-5 (70) of the Circuit
demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient Criminal Court of Manila, the accused, Pedro Pagal y
provocation to shoot at the complainant’s vehicle. Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo were charged
with the crime of robbery with homicide
III. Incomplete defense of a relative
When the case was called for arraignment, counsel de
The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating oficio for the accused informed said court of their
circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also intention to enter a plea of guilty provided that they be
unmeritorious allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances
of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
Since the act of Andres in cursing and shouting at the
offended party immediately preceding the act, and that of
appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful
having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce
aggression against them, Dino Gonzalez.
passion and obfuscation.
IV. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
Thereafter, the accused presented evidence to prove the
Finally, the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a part of the victim immediately preceding the act and
wrong is likewise devoid of merit. acting upon an impulse so powerful as to produce
passion and obfuscation. After the accused had rested
130
 AB
their case, the prosecution presented the statements 4 of his nape, head, and ear which impelled Rosario to
the accused, and other pertinent documents regarding immediately bring him to the Lingayen Community
the investigation of the case. Hospital where Dr. Daisy Arellano examined him and
treated his lacerated left index finger, contusions, and
Issue: The appellants further assail the trial court in not hematoma at the right cerebrum.
appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation. On October 2 and 7, 1993, Tomelden went back to the
hospital complaining of dizziness, headache, and other
Ruling: Again, the appellants' contention is devoid of pains. The attending doctors observed the patient to be
merit. in a state of drowsiness and frequent vomiting. On
Firstly, since the alleged provocation which caused the October 8, 1993, Rosario brought Tomelden to the Sison
obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same Memorial Provincial Hospital in Dagupan City, where the
incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill- attending physician, Dr. Ramon Ramos, diagnosed
treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these two Tomelden suffering from "brain injury, secondary to
mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage."3
distinct and separate circumstances but should be Tomelden was confined in the provincial hospital until
treated as one. 11 Secondly, the circumstance of 3:00 p.m. of October 10, 1993, and, due to financial
passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime constraints, was thereafter discharged despite signs
which — as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly negating physical condition improvement. Upon reaching
meditated before its execution. Thus, in People vs. their house, however, Tomelden again complained of
Daos, 12 a case of robbery with homicide, this Court extreme head pain, prompting his wife to bring him back
rejected the claim of the appellants therein that passion to the Lingayen Community Hospital where Dr. Arellano
and obfuscation should have been estimated in their again attended to him. This time, things turned for the
favor, because the death of the victim therein took place worst, the doctor noting that Tomelden appeared to be
on the occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution, semi-conscious, sleepy, uncooperative, and not
had been planned and calmly meditated by the responding to any stimulant. Tomelden died at 9:00 p.m.
appellants. Thirdly, the maltreatment that appellants of that day due, per Dr. Arellano, to "cardio-respiratory
claim the victim to have committed against them arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant
occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident."
the crime.
The defense presented petitioner who denied having any
Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance intention to kill, asserting that hypertension, for which
must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. Tomelden was receiving treatment, was the cause of the
We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in latter’s death.
not appreciating the said mitigating circumstances in
favor of the appellants. Issue: Whether the CA erred in not appreciating the
mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the
Penalty: Robbery with homicide is punished by reclusion part of the victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a
perpetua to death. Since the aggravating circumstance wrong in favor of the petitioner.
of nighttime is offset by the mitigating circumstance of
plea of guilty, the lesser penalty, which is reclusion Ruling: Petitioner next contends that the mitigating
perpetua, should be imposed upon the appellants. circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong and sufficient provocation on the part of the victim
8. Urbano vs. People ought to be appreciated in petitioner’s favor. On this
Facts: On September 28, 1993, at around 8:00 p.m., the score, we agree with petitioner.
victim Brigido Tomelden and petitioner were at the
compound of the Lingayen Water District (LIWAD) in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 13, RPC provide as follows:
Lingayen, Pangasinan, having just arrived from a picnic
in the nearby town of Bugallon, Pangasinan, where, with Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.––The following are
some other co-workers, they drunk beer in a restaurant. mitigating circumstances:
While inside the compound, the two had a heated
altercation in the course of which Tomelden hurled xxxx
insulting remarks at petitioner. Reacting, petitioner asked
why Tomelden, when drunk, has the penchant of 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave
insulting petitioner. a wrong as that committed.

The exchange of words led to an exchange of blows. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
Cooler heads succeeded in breaking up the fight, but offended party immediately preceded the act.
only for a brief moment as the protagonists refused to be
pacified and continued throwing fist blows at each other. When the law speaks of provocation either as a
Then petitioner delivered a "lucky punch," as described mitigating circumstance or as an essential element of
by eyewitness Orje Salazar, on Tomelden’s face, which self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper
made Tomelden topple down. Tomelden was on the conduct of the offended party capable of exciting,
verge of hitting his head on the ground had their inciting, or irritating anyone;12 it is not enough that the
companions not caught him and prevented the fall. The provocative act be unreasonable or annoying; 13 the
blow, however, caused Tomelden’s nose to bleed and provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit
rendered him unconscious. the wrongful act14 and should immediately precede the
act.15 This third requisite of self-defense is present: (1)
Petitioner and his other co-workers brought Tomelden to when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor;
the office of the LIWAD general manager where he spent (2) when, even if provocation was given, it was not
the night. He remained in the compound the following sufficient; (3) when even if the provocation was
day, September 29, 1993. Upon arriving home at around sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
6:00 p.m. of that day, Tomelden informed his wife, himself; or (4) when even if a provocation was given by
the person defending himself, it was not proximate and
Rosario, of the fight the previous night and of his having
immediate to the act of aggression.16
been rendered unconscious. He complained of pain in

131
 AB
I. Incomplete self-defense while their co-workers were trying to separate them is a
compelling indicium that he never intended so grave a
In the instant case, Tomelden’s insulting remarks wrong as to kill the victim.
directed at petitioner and uttered immediately before the
fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. This is not to Penalty: Withal, with no aggravating circumstance and
mention other irritating statements made by the two mitigating circumstances appreciable in favor of
deceased while they were having beer in Bugallon. petitioner, we apply par. 5 of Art. 64, RPC, which
Petitioner was the one provoked and challenged to a fist pertinently provides:
fight.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
contain three periods.––In cases in which the penalties
Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony on the events
immediately preceding the fisticuff and earlier dovetails prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a
with the testimony of Salazar. single divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
In gist, petitioner testified being, in the afternoon of accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the
September 28, 1993, in the nearby town of Bugallon for courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the
a picnic. He was with Tomelden and several others, following rules, according to whether there are or are no
including Dominador Navarro, Chairperson of LIWAD. At mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
a restaurant in Bugallon, the group ordered goat’s meat
and drank beer. When it was time to depart, Navarro xxxx
asked petitioner to inform Tomelden, then seated in 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
another table, to prepare to leave.
and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
When so informed, Tomelden insulted petitioner, telling law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according
the latter he had no business stopping him from further
to the number and nature of such circumstances.
drinking as he was paying for his share of the bill.
Chastised, petitioner returned to his table to report to The prescribed penalty for homicide under Art. 249 of
Navarro. At that time, petitioner saw that Tomelden had the RPC is reclusion temporal or from 12 years and one
already consumed 17 bottles of beer. In all, the group day to 20 years. With the appreciation of two mitigating
stayed at the picnic place for three and a half hours
circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a
before returning to the LIWAD.
wrong as that committed and of sufficient provocation
from the victim, and the application of par. 5 of Art. 64,
Upon reaching the LIWAD compound, Tomelden
RPC, the imposable penalty would, thus, be the next
allegedly slapped and hurled insults at him, calling him
"sipsip" just to maintain his employment as Navarro’s lower penalty prescribed for homicide and this should be
tricycle driver. Tomelden allegedly then delivered several prision mayor or from six years and one day to 12 years.
fist and kick blows at petitioner, a couple of which hit him Consequently, with the application of the Indeterminate
despite his evasive actions. Petitioner maintained that he Sentence Law, petitioner ought to be incarcerated from
only boxed the victim in retaliation, landing that lucky prision correccional as minimum and prision mayor as
punch in the course of parrying the latter’s blows. maximum. In view of the circumstances of the case,
considering that the petitioner never meant or intended
It is abundantly clear from the above transcript that the to kill the victim, a prison term of eight (8) years and one
provocation came from Tomelden. In fact, petitioner, (1) day of prision mayor as maximum period is proper
being very much smaller in height and heft, had the good while the period of two (2) years and four (4) months of
sense of trying to avoid a fight. But as events turned out, prision correccional as minimum period is reasonable.
a fisticuff still ensued, suddenly ending when petitioner’s
9. People vs. Benito
lucky punch found its mark.
Facts: Alberto Benito was sentenced to death by the
II. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
Circuit Criminal Court of Manila after he pleaded guilty to
Moreover, the mitigating circumstance that petitioner had the charge of murder for having shot with a .22 caliber
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that revolver Pedro Moncayo, Jr. on December 12, 1969. The
committed should also be appreciated in his favor. While killing was qualified by treachery and aggravated by
intent to kill may be presumed from the fact of the death premeditation and disregard of rank. It was mitigated by
of the victim, this mitigating factor may still be considered plea of guilty.
when attendant facts and circumstances so warrant, as
After a mandatory review of the death sentence, this
in the instant case. Consider: Petitioner tried to avoid the
Court in its decision of February 13, 1975 affirmed the
fight, being very much smaller than Tomelden. He tried
judgment of conviction. It appreciated in Benito's favor
to parry the blows of Tomelden, albeit he was able,
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
during the scuffle, to connect a lucky punch that ended
penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. (People vs.
the fight. And lest it be overlooked, petitioner helped
Benito, 62 SCRA 351).
carry his unconscious co-worker to the office of the
LIWAD’s general manager. Surely, such gesture cannot Benito filed a motion for reconsideration. He contends
reasonably be expected from, and would be unbecoming that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
of, one intending to commit so grave a wrong as killing immediate vindication of a grave offense and that the
the victim. A bare-knuckle fight as a means to parry the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank should
challenge issued by Tomelden was commensurate to the not be appreciated against him.
potential violence petitioner was facing. It was just
unfortunate that Tomelden died from that lucky punch, Benito, 26, a native of Naga City, in his sworn
an eventuality that could have possibly been averted had statement , which was taken, about five hours after the
he had the financial means to get the proper medical shooting, by Corporal E. Cortez and Patrolmen J. de la
attention. Thus, it is clear that the mitigating Cruz, Jr., and
circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a
H. Roxas of the Manila Police, recounted the
wrong as that committed" must also be appreciated in
background and circumstances of the tragic incident in
favor of petitioner while finding him guilty of homicide.
this manner (Exh. A):
That petitioner landed a lucky punch at Tomelden’s face

132
 AB
... alam ninyo ho, ako ay dating empleyado ng Civil Issue:
Service Commission sa kalye P. Paredes, Sampaloc,
Maynila, at ako ay Clerk 2 sa Administrative Division at Ruling: Assuming that Moncayo's remark was directed
ako ay nagumpisa ng pagtratrabaho sa Civil Service at Benito, we see no justification under the
magmula pa noong November, 1965 ng ako ay circumstances recited above for changing our prior
nasuspende sa aking trabaho dahil kinargohan nila ako opinion that the mitigating circumstance of "haber
ng "DISHONESTY" at nasuspende ako ng 60 days at ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una
nabalik ako sa trabaho noong January 1966 pero ofensa grave, causada al autor del delito," cannot be
kinarguhan uli nila ako ng "MALVERSARTION OF appreciated in Benito's favor. As aptly stated by the
PUBLIC FUNDS, QUALIFIED THEFT, ESTAFA at ponente, Justice Esguerra, Benito "had more than
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT at dinimanda sufficient time to suppress his emotion over said remark
din ako ng Civil Service ng Administrative case ng if he ever did resent it."
"DISHONESTY" at dinismiss na ako sa trabaho ni The six-hour interval between the alleged grave offense
Commissioner Subido noong February 16, 1966. committed by Moncayo against Benito and the
At magmula noon ay nawalan na ako ng trabaho pero assassination was more than sufficient to enable Benito
lahat ho noong kinargo nila sa akin na sinabi ko sa inyo to recover his serenity. But instead of using that time to
ay "fabricated" lang ang mga evidensiya at ang gumawa regain his composure, he evolved the plan of liquidating
ho noong ay ang binaril ko kanina na si PEDRO Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally ambushed
MONCAYO JR. Y RAMOS at naka pending pa ngayon Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the
sa City Fiscal ng Maynila kay Asst. Fiscal Magat at iyon office. He acted with treachery and evident premeditation
namang "dismissal order" ni Commissioner Subido ay in perpetrating the cold-blooded murder.
inapela ko sa Civil Service Board of Appeals. The facts of the case strongly suggest that what really
Magmula noong Idinismiss nila ako sa aking trabaho impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not the
dahil sa "fabricated" charges ay naghirap na ko sa aking latter's alleged defamatory remark that the Civil Service
buhay at nahihiya ako sa mga kaibigan ko. Ako ay Commission compound was a hangout for a thief or for
assign(ed) sa collecting department noon at nagagalit sa thieves but the refusal of Moncayo to change his report
akin ang mga empleyado ng Civil Service dahil mahigpit so as to favor Benito. Benito did not act primarily to
ako sa kanila. vindicate an alleged grave offense to himself but mainly
to chastise Moncayo for having exposed the alleged
Noong bandang alas 7:00 ng gabi noong Dec. 11, 1969, anomalies or defraudation committed by Benito and for
ako ay nagpunta sa Civil Service sa kalye Paredes at obstinately refusing to change his report.
nakita ko si PEDRO MONCAYO, Jr. at kinausap ko siya
at tinanong ko siya na iyong kaso ko ay matagal na at 10. Bacabac vs. People
hindi pa natatapos at baka matulungan niya ako at ang Facts: In the evening of December 23, 1990, Hernani
sagot niya ay "UMALIS KA NA NGA DIYAN BAKA MAY Quidato (the victim) was at a dance hall in Purok 4, San
MANGYARI PA SA IYO AT BAKA IPAYARI KITA DITO" Joaquin, Iloilo City in the company of Eduardo Selibio
at umalis na ko. (Eduardo) and Melchor Selibio (Melchor). And so were
Kaninang bandang alas 11:00 ng umaga ay nagkita kami Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel Talanquines
ni PEDRO MONCAYO Jr. sa loob ng compound ng Civil (Edzel).1
Service at sa harapan ng maraming tao sinabi niya na Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Not long after,
"NAGIISTAMBAY PALA DITO ANG MAGNANAKAW" the victim and his companions also left and on their way
kaya ang ginawa ko ay umalis na ako. home, they encountered Jonathan and Edzel. It appears
Kaninang bandang alas 5:25 ng hapon, nitong araw na that the two groups then and there figured in a
ito, Desiyembre 12, 1969, nakita ko si PEDRO misunderstanding.
MONCAYO Jr. na nagmamanejo noong kotse niya sa On his way home, Jesus Delfin Rosadio (Jesus), who
kalye P. Paredes sa tapat ng Civil Service, sinundan ko was also at the dance hall, noticed a commotion. He
siya at pagliko ng kotse niya sa kanto ng P. Paredes at soon saw that Melchor was "hugging" Edzel, and later
Lepanto, Sampaloc, Maynila, ay binaril ko siya ng "tying" Jonathan "with his hands." Still later, he saw the
walong beses at tinamaan siya at napatumba siya sa victim hit Edzel with a "stick."2 He thus told the victim
kaniyang upuan sa kotse. and his companions that Edzel is the son of Councilor
Pagkatapos ay tumawag ako sa telepono sa MPD Jose Talanquines, Jr. (Jose), whereupon Eduardo3 told
Headquarters para sumurender at kayo nga ang him (Jesus) to go away for they might shoot him. Jesus
dumating kasama ninyo iyong mga kasama ninyo. thus left and proceeded to Edzel's residence to report to
his father what he had witnessed. In the meantime,
Benito surrendered to the police the revolver (Exh. C) Edzel and Jonathan managed to flee.
used in the shooting with the eight empty shells of the
bullets which he had fired at Moncayo. The victim and his companions thereafter headed for
home in the course of which they met Pat. Ricardo
 The Solicitor General argues that the defamatory Bacabac (herein petitioner), together with Edzel and
remark imputed to Moncayo cannot give rise to the Jonathan who are his nephews, and Edzel's father,
mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave Jose, his mother, and two sisters at the corner of M.H.
offense because it was not specifically directed at Del Pilar and Sto. Domingo Streets. Petitioner and Jose
Benito. The prosecution notes that the remark was were carrying M-16 armalites, while Jonathan and Edzel
uttered by Moncayo at eleven o'clock in the morning. were carrying a piece of wood and a revolver,
According to Benito's testimony (not consistent with respectively.
his confession), he saw Moncayo three hours later
Jesus thereupon pointed to the victim and his
or at two o'clock in the afternoon and inquired from
companions as the ones who had manhandled Jonathan
him about his case and Moncayo said that he had
and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that he and
already submitted his report and he could not do
his companions mistook Jonathan and Edzel for other
anything more about Benito's case (26 tan). As
persons. Jesus blurted out, however, "You are just
already stated, the assassination was perpetrated at
bragging that you are brave. You are only bullying small
around five o'clock in the afternoon of the same day.
133
 AB
children."4 Petitioner, at that instant, fired his armalite Upon hearing the shot Edward Robinson, who was also
into the air, while Jose fired his armalite ("as if spraying in the house, went to render assistance and wrested the
his rifle from right to left") at the victim and Eduardo, weapon from the hand of the accused. The latter
even hitting Jonathan in the thigh as he (Jonathan) "was immediately fled from the house and gave himself up to
on the move to strike [the victim] with a piece of wood." the chief of police of the town, H. L. Martin, asking him to
Eduardo fell. And so did the victim who was in a kneeling lock him up in jail; and, when a few minutes later a
position, and as he was raising his hands in surrender, policeman came running in and reported that Hicks had
Jose shot him again. fired a shot at Agustina, the said chief of police caused
Hicks to be arrested.
Meanwhile, Melchor escaped.5
Issue:
The victim, Eduardo, and Jonathan were brought to the
hospital. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival. Ruling: No mitigating circumstances is present.
Eduardo died two hours later.
Not even that mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of
Issue: the Penal Code, to wit loss of reason and self-control
produced by jealousy as alleged by the defense,
Ruling: As for petitioner's invocation of the mitigating inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the criminal
circumstance of "immediate vindication of a grave responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as
offense," it fails. originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise
For such mitigating circumstance to be credited, the act from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
should be, following Article 13, paragraph 5 of the 12. US vs. Dela Cruz
Revised Penal Code, "committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the Facts: Accused in this case caught his lover in carnal
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, communication with a mutual acquaintance.
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree."59 The guilt of the defendant and appellant of the crime of
homicide of which he was convicted in the court below is
The offense committed on Edzel was "hitting" his ear conclusively established by the evidenced of record.
with a stick60 (according to Jesus), a bamboo pole
(according to Edzel).61 By Edzel's own clarification, "[he] Issue:
was hit at [his] ear, not on [his] head." 62 That act would Ruling: We are of opinion that the extenuating
certainly not be classified as "grave offense." And Edzel circumstance set out in subsection 7 of article 9 should
is petitioner's nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity have been taken into consideration, and that the
"within the same degree" contemplated in Article 13, prescribed penalty should have been imposed in its
paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code. minimum degree. Subsection 7 of article 9 is as follows:
11. US vs. Hicks The following are extenuating circumstances:
Facts: For about five years, from September, 1902, to xxx      xxx      xxx
November, 1907, Augustus Hicks, an Afro-American,
and Agustina Sola, a Christian Moro woman, illicitly lived That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
together in the municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation.
Province, until trouble arising between them in the last-
The evidence clearly discloses that the convict, in the
mentioned month of 1907, Agustina quitted Hick's
heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had
house, and, separation from him, went to live with her
theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover) upon
brother-in-law, Luis Corrales. A few days later she
discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with
contracted new relations with another negro named
a mutual acquaintance. We think that under the
Wallace Current, a corporal in the Army who then went
circumstances the convict was entitled to have this fact
to live in the said house.
taken into consideration in extenuation of his offense
On the 21st of December following, at about 7:30 p. m., under the provisions of the above-cited article.
Augustus Hicks together with a soldier named Lloyd
Penalty: Modified by a finding that the commission of
Nickens called at said house, and from the sala called
the crime was marked with the extenuating circumstance
out to his old mistress who was in her room with
set out in subsection 7 of article 9, and by the reduction
Corporal Current, and after conversing with her in the
of the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one
Moro dialect for a few minutes, asked the corporal to
day of reclusion temporal to twelve years and one day of
come out of said room; in response thereto the corporal
reclusion temporal, the judgment of conviction and the
appeared at the door of the room, and after a short
sentence imposed by the trial court should be and are
conversation, Current approached Hicks and they shook
hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against
hands, when Hicks asked him the following question:
the appellant.
"Did I not tell you to leave this woman alone?," to which
Current replied: "That is all right, she told me that she did Other Notes:
not want to live with you any longer, but if she wishes,
she may quit me, and you can live with her." The Hicks case vs. Dela Cruz case
accused then replied: "God damn, I have made up my
Hicks Dela Cruz
mind;" and as Corporal Current saw that Hicks, when, he
said this, was drawing a revolver from his trousers'
In the former case the In the present case
pocket, he caught him by the hand, but the latter, cause alleged "passion however, the impulse
snatching his hand roughly away, said: "Don't do that," and obfuscation" of the upon which defendant
whereupon Current jumped into the room, hiding himself aggressor was the acted and which naturally
behind the partition, just as Hicks drew his revolver and convict's vexation, "produced passion and
fired at Agustina Sola who was close by in the sala of the disappointment and obfuscation" was not that
house. The bullet struck her in the left side of the breast; deliberate anger the woman declined to
she fell to the ground, and died in a little more than an engendered by the have illicit relations with
hour later. refusal of the woman to him, but the sudden

134
 AB
continue to live in illicit revelation that she was The trial court was correct in finding the presence of the
relations with him, which untrue to him, and his mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the
she had a perfect right to discovery of her in authorities.
do; his reason for killing flagrante in the arms of
her being merely that he another. Appellant, immediately after committing the offense,
had elected to leave him voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the police
and with his full authorities as evidenced by the entry in the official police
knowledge to go and live blotter.
with another man.
II. Passion or obfuscation

However, the trial court erred in finding the presence

13. People vs. Gelaver of the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation "as a result of his (appellant’s) wife
Facts: leaving their home and their children."
Version of the Prosecution Before this circumstance may be taken into
The prosecution presented Randy Mamon, who testified consideration, it is necessary to establish the existence
that at 7:00 a.m. of March 24, 1988, he heard shouts of an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition
coming from the house of Tessie Lampedario in of mind. The act producing the obfuscation must not be
Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sto. Niño, South far removed from the commission of the crime by a
Cotabato. He saw the appellant (Gelaver) and a woman considerable length of time, during which the accused
having a heated argument. Thereafter, appellant held the might have recovered his equanimity.
neck of the victim, dragged her and with a knife on his The crime was committed almost a year after the victim
right hand, stabbed the latter three times on the breast. had abandoned the conjugal dwelling.
Appellant then went out of the gate and fled in the
direction of the public market of Sto. Niño. Penalty: Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED except with the modification that the
indemnity, should be increased to P50,000.00 (People v.
Eduardo Gelaver admitted killing his wife but claimed Sison, 189 SCRA 700 [1990]).
that he did so after catching her having carnal act with 14. People vs. Bello
her paramour.
Facts: On September 17, 1954, the accused Guillermo
Appellant testified that he was married to Victoria Bello, a widower who at that time was about 54 years of
Pacinabao, with whom he begot four children. (TSN, age, took a young peasant lady named Alicia Cervantes,
December 19, 1988, p. 9) They lived together at their about 24 years old his common-law wife; (2) that from
conjugal home until July 3, 1987 when she abandoned that day they lived together apparently in blissful
her family to live with her paramour. (TSN, December harmony as man and wife without the benefit of marriage
19, 1988, pp. 10-11) He did not know the name of his bearing, however, no child, ...; (3) that on May 15, 1958,
wife’s paramour nor the name of the owner of the house the accused who had no means of substantial livelihood
where his wife and her paramour had lived together. except that of making "kaingin" and who apparently was
Appellant further testified that on March 24, 1988, after then in financial straits induced Alicia Cervantes to
he was informed by his daughter that his wife and accept an employment as entertainer in a bar and
paramour were living at a house in front of the Sto. Niño restaurant establishment known as Maring's Place
Catholic Church, appellant immediately repaired to that situated the corner of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio Streets,
place. Upon entering the house, he saw his wife lying on Gumaca, Quezon (4) that Alicia Cervantes entered the
her back and her paramour on top of her, having sexual service of Maring's Place on that day as a public
intercourse. hostess; (5) that the accused being infatuated with his
young bride used to watch her movements in Maring's
Version of the Defense Place everyday; (6) that on May 16 he saw Alicia enter
the Gumaca theater in Gumaca with a man whom the
Appellant’s version of the killing was that when his wife accused found later was caressing his common-law wife
saw him, she pushed her paramour aside. Her paramour inside the movie house; (7) that being in love with her he
immediately stood up, took a knife placed on top of the took her out from the movie and warned her to be more
bedside table and attacked appellant. The latter was discreet in her personal conduct in Gumaca; (8) that
able to wrest possession of the knife and then used it Alicia Cervantes continued to serve at Maring's Place as
against the paramour, who evaded the thrusts of the a public hostess; (9) that on May 20, 1958, at 3:00 p.m.
appellant by hiding behind the victim. Thus, it was the the accused went to Maring's Place to ask for some
victim who received the stab intended for the paramour. money from Alicia; (10) that Maring, the owner of the
 As to why he continued to stab his wife, appellant place, and Alicia refused to give money, Maring telling
said that his mind had been "dimmed" or him to forget Alicia completely because he was already
overpowered by passion and obfuscation by the an old man, an invalid besides and should stop bothering
sight of his wife having carnal act with her paramour. Alicia; (11) that having failed to obtain financial
assistance from his paramour, accused left the place
 Accused in this case surrendered to the police but
somewhat despondent and went home passing
only admitted to killing his wife. He did not make
Bonifacio Street; (12) that on his way home he met the
mention of the fact that he saw his wife in the act of
brothers Justo Marasigan and Luis Marasigan who
having carnal communication with her paramour.
greeted the accused, Luis saying to his brother Justo the
Issue: following: "So this is the man whose wife is being used
by Maring for white slave trade"; (13) that these remarks
Ruling: of Luis Marasigan naturally brought grief to the accused,
I. Voluntary surrender to drown which he sought Paty's place in Gumaca where
he drank 5 glasses of tuba; (14) that from Paty's place
he went to Realistic Studio which is in front of Maring's
Place and from there watched the movements of Alicia;
135
 AB
(15) that at about 9:00 o'clock that night he entered witnesses as well as the factual findings, favored the
Maring's Place and without much ado held Alicia from testimonies of the prosecution, which as follows:
behind with his left hand in the manner of a boa
strangulating its prey and with his right hand stabbed In the afternoon of 24 May 1977, Hernando Oro and his
Alicia several times with a balisong; (16) that seeing brothers Diosdado and Danilo, brother- in-law Rafael
Alicia fallen on the ground and believing her to be Candelaria, a first cousin Sergio Argonzola were invited
mortally wounded, he fled and went to the municipal by their eldest brother Pacifico to the latter's house in the
building and there surrendered himself to the police of interior of Divinagracia Street, La Paz, Iloilo City, for a
Gumaca. small gathering to celebrate the town fiesta.

Issue: Whether the accused may lay claim to a second Hernando and his companions decided to leave and
mitigating circumstance, that of having acted on a while traversing Divinagracia street, Pacifico was called
provocation sufficiently strong to cause passion and by Celso Amaguin, one of the accused, but he was not
obfuscation. attended by him. Immediately, Celso, with a butcher's
knife in hand, rushed towards Pacifico. Gildo, Celso's
Ruling: younger brother, with a knife tucked to his waist,
followed with a slingshot known as "Indian pana" or
I. Voluntary surrender "Indian target". While Gildo aimed the dart from his
Both defense and prosecution agree that the accused- slingshot at Danilo, which hit the latter on the chest,
appellant is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo then stabbed Diosdado
circumstances of voluntary surrender to the authorities. with a knife. Thereafter, Willie, the eldest of

II. Passion or obfuscation the Amaguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and
successively shot the brothers Pacifico, Diosdado and
the fleeing Danilo. Diosdado, own kneeling, gasping for
The defense submits that accused is so entitled,
because the deceased's flat rejection of petitioner's breath and pleading for his
entreaties for her to quit her calling as a hostess and life, was again shot by Willie who next fired anew at
return to their former relation, aggravated by her
Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly
sneering statement that the accused was penniless and
stabbed Pacifico who already lying prostrate and
invalid (baldado), provoked the appellant, as he testified,
into losing his head and stabbing the deceased. We are defenseless.
inclined to agree with the defense, having due Danilo Oro, the youngest of Orgs testified that while
regard to the circumstances disclosed by the record.
walking along Diniagracia Street with his three brothers
and two others, they were waylaid by Celso, Willie and
It will be recalled that the lower court found that the Gildo, their cousin Danny, all surnamed amaguin, and
accused had previously reproved the deceased for
several others. Celso placed an arm on the shoulder of
allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose
conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by Paci co and
Marasigan's remark on the very day of the crime that the stabbed him with a knife. Then there was a clash
accused was the husband "whose wife was being used between the two groups. In a split second, he
by Maring for purposes of prostitution," a remark that so
deeply wounded the appellant's feelings that he was (Danilo) was hit on the left chest by a dart from the
driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba) before slingshot of Gildo whom he saw aiming at him. He
visiting Alicia (the deceased) to plead with her to leave (Danilo) pulled the dart from his chest and ran away but
her work. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison
was hit on the lips by a bullet. Then he was pushed by
with the accused, therefore, was not motivated by any
Hernando to seek cover.
desire to lead a chaste life henceforth, but showed her
determination to pursue a lucrative profession that Rafael Candelaria, a brother-in-law of the Oros, also
permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. took the witness stand. His version was that while he, his
brothers-in-law and one Sergio Argonzola were walking
We cannot see how the accused's insistence that she along Divinagracia Street that afternoon, two men
live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the approached them. Without any provocation, one
proposal, can be properly qualified as arising from
suddenly stabbed him. After being hit on the left arm, he
immoral and unworthy passions. Even without benefit of
immediately fled to the plaza where he flagged down a
wedlock, a monogamous liaison appears morally of a
higher level than gainful promiscuity. passing cab to take him to the hospital. He did not see
what happened next to his companions.
Penalty: Wherefore, the appealed decision should be,  Later, both Ernie Ortigas and Celso Amaguin
and hereby is, modified. This Court finds the accused- escaped towards the railway tracks.6 The following
appellant, Guillermo Bello, guilty beyond reasonable day, he was brought by his uncle to the PC
doubt of the crime of homicide, attended by two (2) authorities in Fort San Pedro for "safe-keeping" and
mitigating circumstances: (a) passion and obfuscation, turned over to the local police after a week.
and (b) voluntary surrender, and, therefore, imposes
upon him an indeterminate sentence ranging from a Issue:
minimum of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
Ruling: Finally, we agree with accused-appellants' view
mayor to a maximum of ten (10) years of prision mayor;
that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in their
orders him also to personally indemnify the heirs of Alicia
favor.
Cervantes in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the
costs. While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week
before turning themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily
15. People vs. Amaguin
surrendered to the police authorities before arrest could
Facts: This case resulted in the bloodshed between the be effected.
Oro brothers and the Amaguin brothers. Both
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating
parties have provided their respective testimonies and circumstance, the following elements must be present:
the court, in consideration of the credibility of the (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
136
 AB
and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. 28 All these belonging to said Yu Wan, to the damage and prejudice
requisites appear to have attended their surrender. of the said owner in the said sum of P26, Philippine
currency.
Penalty: In Crim. Cases Nos. 8041 and 8042, Gildo
Amaguin is guilty of two (2) separate crimes of homicide That the said accused Francisco de la Cruz is a habitual
for the death of Diosdado and Pacifico, respectively. The delinquent under the provisions of the Revised Penal
penalty prescribed by law for homicide is reclusion Code, he having been previously convicted once of the
crime of theft and twice of the crime of estafa, by virtue
temporal. 29 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, of final judgments rendered by competent courts, having
and appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary been last convicted on July 24, 1933.
surrender with no aggravating circumstance, the
maximum penalty to be imposed on accused Gildo Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
Amaguin for each of the homicide he has committed,
which he must serve successively, should be taken from During the trial and after two witnesses for the
the minimum of the imposable penalty, which is reclusion prosecution had testified, the accused withdrew their
temporal the range of the minimum period of which is plea of not guilty, substituting it by that of guilty.
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years Issue:
and eight (8) months, while the minimum should be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is Ruling: On the other hand, the appellant's plea of guilty
prision mayor the full range of which is six (6) years and does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under
one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods. article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code,
which requires that this plea be spontaneous and that it
In Crim. case No. 8041, Willie Amaguin is guilty of be made prior to the presentation of evidence by the
homicide aggravated by abuse of superior strength but prosecution.
offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, and in Crim. Case No. 8042, he is guilty of The confession of guilt, although subsequent to the
frustrated homicide likewise aggravated by abuse of consummation of the crime and entirely alien to its
superior strength but offset by voluntary surrender. For development, constitutes a cause for the mitigation of
the homicide, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the penalty, not because it is a circumstance modifying
and taking into account the mitigating circumstance of criminal responsibility already incurred and in the
voluntary surrender which, as earlier mentioned, offsets evolution of which it has not intervened absolutely, but
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior because, as an act of repentance and respect for the
strength, the maximum penalty should be taken from the law, it indicates a moral disposition in the accused
medium of the imposable penalty, which is reclusion favorable to his reform.
temporal the range of the medium period of which is
It is clear that these benefits are not deserved by the
fourteen (14) years eight (8) months and one (1) day to
accused who submits to the law only after the
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the
presentation of some evidence for the prosecution,
minimum should be taken from the penalty next lower in
believing that in the end the trial will result in his
degree which is prision mayor in any of its periods.
conviction by virtue thereof.
For the frustrated homicide, the imposable penalty is one
Penalty: Wherefore, eliminating the additional penalty by
degree lower than the penalty prescribed by law for the
reason of habitual delinquency, considering the
consummated offense, and one degree lower than
presence of an aggravating circumstance in the
reclusion temporal is prision mayor. Applying the
commission of the crime without any mitigating
Indeterminate Sentence Law and the attending
circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
circumstances which offset each other, the maximum
Law, the appellant is sentenced to the penalty of from six
penalty to be imposed should be taken from the medium
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six years, ten
of the imposable penalty, which is prision mayor the
months and one day of prision mayor, as maximum,
range of the medium period of which is eight (8) years
affirming the appealed sentence in all other respects,
and one (1) day to ten (10) years, while the minimum
with the costs.
should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree,
which is prision correccional the full range of which is six 17. Canta vs. People
(6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, in any of its
periods. Facts: Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister
Erlinda Monter a cow, subject of the case, upon its birth
16. People vs. Dela Cruz on March 10, 1984. The cow remained under the care of
Erlinda Monter for some time. Subsequently, Narciso
Facts: That on or about the 30th day of May, 1936, in
gave the care and custody of the animal, first, to
the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused
Generoso Cabonce, from October 24, 1984 to March 17,
Francisco de la Cruz, Fernando Legaspi and three other
1985; then to Maria Tura, from May 17, 1985 to March 2,
persons whose identities are still unknown,
1986; and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay, from March 3,
confederating together and helping one another, did then
1986 until March 14, 1986 when it was lost.4 It appears
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with
that at 5 o'clock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986,
intent of gain, attack, assault and use personal violence
Agapay took the cow to graze in the mountain of
upon one Yu Wan, by then and there giving him blows
Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag, about 40 meters from
with his fist on the face and other parts of the body,
his hut. However, when he came back for it at past 9
thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which have
o'clock in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay found
required and will require medical attendance for a period
the cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the
of more than one but less than nine days and have
house of Filomeno Vallejos. He was told that petitioner
prevented and will prevent the said Yu Wan from
Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal.
engaging in his customary labor for the same period of
time; and afterwards took, stole and carried away with Upon instructions of the owner, Gardenio and Maria Tura
him without the consent of the owner thereof the went to recover the animal from petitioner's wife, but
following personal property, to wit: they were informed that petitioner had delivered the cow
to his father, Florentino Canta, who was at that time
Twenty-six (P26) pesos in cash, consisting of different
barangay captain of Laca, Padre Burgos, Southern
denominations ................ P26.00
137
 AB
Leyte. Accordingly, the two went to Florentino's house. There being one mitigating circumstance and no
On their way, they met petitioner who told them that if aggravating circumstance in the commission of the
Narciso was the owner, he should claim the cow himself. crime, the penalty to be imposed in this case should be
Nevertheless, petitioner accompanied the two to his fixed in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate
father's house, where Maria recognized the cow. As Sentence Law, in relation to Art. 64 of the Revised Penal
petitioner's father was not in the house, petitioner told Code, petitioner should be sentenced to an
Gardenio and Maria he would call them the next day so indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which is within
that they could talk the matter over with his father. the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i. e.,
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium,
However, petitioner never called them. Hence, Narciso and the maximum of which is prision mayor in its
Gabriel reported the matter to the police of Malitbog, maximum period.
Southern Leyte. As a result, Narciso and petitioner
Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner Additional Cases
admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and
that it was lost on December 3, 1985. He presented two 1. Mariano vs. People
certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and
another dated February 27, 1985, to support his claim Facts: At about 6:30 in the evening of September 12,
(Exh. B). 1999, Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner type
jeep along Barangay Engkanto, Angat, Bulacan. With
Issue: him were his wife, Urbanita, and their two-year old son,
Ruling: Canta should be given the benefit of the as they just came from a baptismal party. Luis de Leon,
an uncle of Ferdinand, also came from the baptismal
mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
party and was driving his owner type jeep. Accused-
surrender. appellant Reynaldo Mariano was driving his red Toyota
The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the pick-up with his wife, Rebecca, and their helper, Rowena
Años, as passengers. They had just attended a worship
following elements: (1) the offender has not actually
service in Barangay Engkanto.
been arrested; (2) the offender surrenders to a person in
authority or to the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is
The Toyota pick-up overtook the jeep of Ferdinand de
voluntary.26 In the present case, petitioner Exuperancio
Leon and almost bumped it. Ferdinand got mad,
Canta had not actually been arrested. In fact, no
overtook the pick-up and blocked its path. Reynaldo
complaint had yet been filed against him when he Mariano stopped the pick-up behind the jeep. Ferdinand
surrendered the cow to the authorities. alighted from his jeep and approached Reynaldo.
Ferdinand claimed that he and Reynaldo had an
It has been repeatedly held that for surrender to be
altercation. However, Reynaldo insisted that he just
voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself
stayed inside the pick-up and kept quiet while Ferdinand
unconditionally to the authorities, showing an intention to hurled invectives at him. Urbanita tried to pacify
save the authorities the trouble and expense that his Ferdinand and sought the assistance of Luis de Leon.
search and capture would require. Luis intervened and told Ferdinand and Reynaldo
"magpasensiyahan na lamang kayo at pagpasensiyahan
In petitioner's case, he voluntarily took the cow to the
mo si Ferdinand." Ferdinand and Reynaldo heeded the
municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally advice of Luis and they went their separate ways.
in the custody of the authorities and thus saved them the
trouble of having to recover the cow from him. This Instead of proceeding to his house in Norzagaray,
circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary Ferdinand decided to drop by his mother’s house in San
surrender and should be considered in favor of Roque, Angat to pick up some items. He parked his jeep
petitioner. in front of the house of his mother and alighted
therefrom. However, he was bumped by a moving
Penalty: The trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of vehicle, thrown four (4) meters away and lost
violation of §2(c) of P. D. No. 533, otherwise known as consciousness. Urbanita shouted, "Mommy, Mommy,
the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. However, it erred in nasagasaan si Ferdie." She identified the fast-moving
imposing the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision vehicle that bumped Ferdinand as the same red Toyota
mayor, as minimum, to 12 years, 5 months and 11 days pick-up driven by Reynaldo.
of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The trial
court apparently considered P. D. No. 533 as a special On the other hand, Reynaldo and his wife, Rebecca,
law and applied §1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, tried to show that the jeep of Ferdinand stopped on the
which provides that "if the offense is punished by any road in front of the house of the latter’s mother about five
other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an (5) to six (6) meters away from their pick-up. Reynaldo
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which stopped the pick-up as he saw an oncoming vehicle,
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the which he allowed to pass. Thereafter, Reynaldo made a
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term signal and overtook the jeep of Ferdinand. However,
prescribed by the same." However, as held in People v. Ferdinand suddenly alighted from his jeep, lost his
balance and was sideswiped by the overtaking pick-up.
Macatanda,28 P. D. No. 533 is not a special law. The
Reynaldo did not stop his pick-up and he proceeded on
penalty for its violation is in terms of the classification
his way for fear that the bystanders might harm him and
and duration of penalties prescribed in the Revised his companions. After bringing his companions to their
Penal Code, thus indicating that the intent of the house in Marungko, Angat, Bulacan, Reynaldo
lawmaker was to amend the Revised Penal Code with proceeded to Camp Alejo S. Santos in Malolos, Bulacan
respect to the offense of theft of large cattle. In fact, §10 to surrender and report the incident.
of the law provides:
Ferdinand was brought to the Sto. Niño Hospital in
The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815,
Bustos, Bulacan, where he stayed for two and a half
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as
days and incurred medical expenses amounting to
amended, pertinent provisions of the Revised ₱17,800.00 On September 15, 1999, Ferdinand was
Administrative Code, as amended, all laws, decrees, transferred to St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City,
orders, instructions, rules and regulations which are where he stayed until September 25, 1999 and incurred
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or medical expenses amounting to ₱66,243.25. He likewise
modified accordingly. spent ₱909.50 for medicines, ₱2,900.00 for scanning,
138
 AB
₱8,000.00 for doctor’s fee and ₱12,550.00 for the Taiwan to work as a domestic helper. Upon arrival in
services of his caregivers and masseur from September Manila, the trio checked at Dangwa Inn, with Nemesio
12 to October 31, 1999. Ferdinand suffered multiple and Wilma Grace sharing a room. All three of them
facial injuries, a fracture of the inferior part of the right stayed at the inn until October 18, 1995, when Wilma
orbital wall and subdural hemorrhage secondary to Grace left for Taiwan.
severe head trauma, as evidenced by the certification
issued by Dr. Hernando L. Cruz, Jr. of St. Luke’s Medical Thereafter, Romenda received from Taiwan four letters
Center. Urbanita, received the amount of ₱50,000.00 written by Wilma Grace on various dates. Although all
from Reynaldo Mariano by way of financial assistance, the letters were addressed to Romenda, two of them
as evidenced by a receipt dated September 15, 1999.2 were meant by Wilma Grace to be read by her
paramour, Nemesio. In the other two letters, Wilma
Under its decision rendered on May 26, 2003 after trial, Grace instructed Romenda to reveal to appellant her
however, the RTC convicted the petitioner of frustrated affair with Nemesio.
homicide.
It was only sometime late in February 1996 that
 In this appeal, the petitioner argues that his guilt for Romenda, following her bosom friend’s written
any crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, instructions, informed appellant about the extramarital
and claims that Ferdinand’s injuries were the result affair between Wilma Grace and Nemesio. Romenda
of a mere accident. He insists that he lacked criminal informed him that the two had spent a day and a night
intent; that he was not negligent in driving his pick- together in a room at Dangwa Inn in Manila. Appellant
up truck; and that the CA should have appreciated became furious. He declared "Addan to aldaw na dayta
voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in nga Nemesio, patayek dayta nga Nemesio" (There will
his favor. be a day for that Nemesio. I will kill that Nemesio).
Appellant then got all the letters of Wilma Grace from
Issue: Romenda.

Ruling: We affirm the conviction of the petitioner for That same week Alfred Mayamnes, appellant’s neighbor
reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical who was presented at the trial as a prosecution witness,
injuries. had a talk with appellant. Mayamnes was an elder of the
Kankanaey tribe to which appellant belonged. He wanted
to confirm whether Nemesio Lopate, who was likewise
from the same tribe, was having an affair with appellant’s
spouse. Talk apparently had reached the tribal elders
Contrary to the petitioner’s insistence, the mitigating and they wanted the problem resolved as soon as
circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be possible. visibly angry appellant confirmed the gossip.
appreciated in his favor. Mayamnes also testified that he advised Nemesio to stay
at the Mountain Trail Kankanaey community until things
Paragraph 5 of Article 365, Revised Penal Code, had cooled down.
expressly states that in the imposition of the penalties,
the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without Shortly after their talk, appellant closed down his
regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64 of the Revised bakeshop and offered his equipment for sale. Among the
Penal Code. "The rationale of the law," according to potential buyers he approached was Mayamnes, but the
People v. Medroso, Jr.: latter declined the offer.

x x x can be found in the fact that in quasi-offenses Sometime during the first week of March, Mayamnes
penalized under Article 365, the carelessness, saw appellant load his bakery equipment on board a
imprudence or negligence which characterizes the hired truck and depart for Nueva Vizcaya.
wrongful act may vary from one situation to another, in
nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and in order
At around 10:00 p.m. of March 10, 1996, according to
that there may be a fair and just application of the
another prosecution witness, Annie Bayanes, a trader in
penalty, the courts must have ample discretion in its
vegetables, she was at the Trading Post, La Trinidad,
imposition, without being bound by what we may call the
Benguet. 24 The Trading Post is a popular depot where
mathematical formula provided for in Article 64 of the
vegetable growers in the Cordilleras bring their produce
Revised Penal Code. On the basis of this particular
late in the evenings for sale to wholesalers and retailers.
provision, the trial court was not bound to apply
Witness Bayanes said she was at the unloading area
paragraph 5 of Article 64 in the instant case even if
(bagsakan), conversing with another dealer at the latter’s
appellant had two mitigating circumstances in his favor
booth, when suddenly two gunshots shattered the quiet
with no aggravating circumstance to offset them.
evening.
2. People vs. Ignas
Bayanes turned towards the place where the sound of
the gunshots came from. She testified that she saw a
Facts: Appellant is an elementary school graduate. He person falling to the ground. Standing behind the fallen
resided at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet, where he individual, some 16 inches away, was another person
operated a bakery. He is married to Wilma Grace Ignas, who tucked a handgun into his waistband and casually
by whom he has a son of minor age. Wilma Grace used walked away.
to be the cashier of Windfield Enterprise, which is owned
by Pauline Gumpic. Pauline had a brother, Nemesio
Initially, she only saw the gunman’s profile, but when he
Lopate. It was he whom appellant fatally shot.
turned, she caught a glimpse of his face. She
immediately recognized him as the appellant June Ignas.
Sometime in September 1995, appellant’s wife, Wilma She said she was familiar with him as he was her
Grace Ignas, confided to her close friend, Romenda townmate and had known him for several years. Witness
Foyagao, that she was having an affair with Nemesio Bayanes was five or six meters away from the scene,
Lopate. and the taillight of a parked jeepney, which was being
loaded with vegetables, plus the lights from the roof of
On the evening of October 16, 1995, Wilma Grace, the bagsakan, aided her recognition of appellant.
Romenda, and Nemesio went to Manila. Romenda and
Nemesio were sending off Wilma Grace at the Ninoy Also at the bagsakan area that night was prosecution
Aquino International Airport as she was leaving for witness Marlon Manis. He testified that on hearing
139
 AB
gunshots from the Trading Post entrance, he We likewise find the alleged mitigating circumstance of
immediately looked at the place where the gunfire came passion and obfuscation inexistent.
from. He saw people converging on a spot where a
bloodied figure was lying on the ground. Witness Manis The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of
saw that the fallen victim was Nemesio Lopate, whom he vindication of a grave offense and passion and
said he had known since Grade 2 in elementary school. obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they
Manis then saw another person, some 25 meters away, arise from the same facts or motive. In other words, if
hastily walking away from the scene. He could not see appellant attacked his victim in proximate vindication of a
the person’s face very well, but from his gait and build, grave offense, he could no longer claim in the same
he identified the latter as his close friend and neighbor, breath that passion and obfuscation also blinded him.
June Ignas. Manis said that the scene was very dimly lit
and the only illumination was from the lights of passing Moreover, for passion and obfuscation to be well
vehicles, but he was familiar with appellant’s build, founded, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
hairstyle, and manner of walking. should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced
Prosecution witness Mona Barredo, a bakery worker, the obfuscation was not far removed from the
testified that she knew appellant. She said they were co- commission of the crime by a considerable length of
workers formerly at the Annaliza Bakery at Km. 10, time, during which the perpetrator might recover his
Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet. Barredo declared that at moral equanimity. To repeat, the period of two (2) weeks
around 10:30 p.m. of March 10, 1996, appellant came to which spanned the discovery of his wife’s extramarital
her residence at Pico, La Trinidad. After being served dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time
refreshments, appellant took out a handgun from his for appellant to reflect and cool off.
jacket and removed the empty shells from the chamber.
Appellant then told her to throw the empty cartridges out III. Voluntary surrender
of the window. Because of nervousness she complied.
Barredo also said that appellant disclosed to her that he
had just shot his wife’s paramour. Appellant then stayed Clearly, appellant’s claimed surrender was neither
at her house for 8 or 9 hours; he left only in the morning spontaneous nor voluntary.
of March 11, 1996, 39 according to her. Police
investigators later recovered the spent gun shells from On this point, the following requirements must be
witness Barredo’s sweet potato garden. satisfied: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested;
(2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in
According to witness on the scene, responding authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.
policemen immediately brought the victim, Nemesio
Lopate, to the Benguet General Hospital where he was Records show, however, that leaflets and posters were
pronounced dead on arrival. circulated for information to bring the killer of Nemesio to
justice. A team of police investigators from La Trinidad,
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in not appreciating Benguet then went to Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya to invite
in favor of the accused-appellant the mitigating appellant for questioning. Only then did he return to
circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave Benguet. But he denied the charge of killing the victim.
offense, passion and obfuscation, and voluntary
surrender. Penalty: Absent any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance for the offense of homicide the penalty
Ruling: imposable under Art. 64 of the Revised Penal Code is
reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty which could
I. Immediate vindication of a grave offense actually be imposed on appellant is an indeterminate
prison term consisting of eight (8) years and one (1) day
According to the OSG, for the mitigating circumstance of of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years,
vindication of a grave offense to apply, the vindication eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
must be "immediate." This view is not entirely accurate. as maximum.
The word "immediate" in the English text is not the
correct translation of the controlling Spanish text of the 3. Bongalon vs. People
Revised Penal Code, which uses the word "proxima."
The Spanish text, on this point, allows a lapse of time
between the grave offense and the actual Facts:
vindication. Thus, in an earlier case involving the
infidelity of a wife, the killing of her paramour prompted Version of the Prosecution
proximately — though not immediately — by the desire
to avenge the wrong done, was considered an On May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and
extenuating circumstance in favor of the accused. The Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the
time elapsed between the offense and the suspected evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in
cause for vindication, however, involved only hours and Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of
minutes, not days. the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann
Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called
Hence, we agree with the Solicitor General that the lapse him "sissy"; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and
of two (2) weeks between his discovery of his wife’s Roldan and called them names like "strangers" and
infidelity and the killing of her supposed paramour could "animals"; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back
no longer be considered proximate. The passage of a with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face;4 that the
fortnight is more than sufficient time for appellant to have petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and
recovered his composure and assuaged the unease in challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but
his mind. The established rule is that there can be no Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the
immediate vindication of a grave offense when the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the
accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity. Thus, Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident;
in this case, we hold that the mitigating circumstance of that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the
immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital;5 that the
considered in appellant’s favor. doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical
certificates attesting that Jayson suffered the following
II. Passion and obfuscation contusions, to wit: (1) contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area,

140
 AB
left; and (2) +1x1 cm. contusion left zygomatic area and That sometime in 1983, the Ministry of Human
contusion .5 x 2.33 cm. scapular area, left. Settlements, the Metro Manila Commission and Kilusang
Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK) undertook a Livelihood
Version of the Defense Program for Barangays in Metro Manila consisting of
loans in the amount of P10, 000.00 per barangay.
On his part, the petitioner denied having physically
abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only As Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, accused
talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and received a check in the amount of P10,000.00 for said
Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about barangay's livelihood program.
Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about
Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting The check, to be encashed, had to be supported by a
invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting project proposal to be approved by the KKK.
that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from
harming his daughters.7 The accused encashed the check received by him in the
amount of P10,000.00 with the Land Bank of the
To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Philippines.
Rose testified that her father did not hit or slap but only
confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her The accused distributed the amount of P10,000.00 in the
daughters "Kimi" and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. form of loans of P1,000.00 each to members of the
Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and barangay council.
calling him a "sissy." She insisted that it was instead
Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the After evaluating the evidence adduced, the
procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and Sandiganbayan came out with its factual findings and
protective father. conclusions, hereunder detailed:

Issue: The petitioner asserts that he was not guilty of the It appears from the evidence, testimonial and
crime charged; and that even assuming that he was documentary, as well as from the stipulations of the
guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had parties that accused Felix V. Nizurtado was the
merely acted to protect her two minor daughters. Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, Malabon,
Metro Manila from 1983 to 1988.
Ruling: In imposing the correct penalty, however, we
have to consider the mitigating circumstance of passion In April or May 1983, Nizurtado and Manuel P. Romero,
or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal Barangay Treasurer of Panghulo, attended a seminar at
Code, because the petitioner lost his reason and self- the University of Life, Pasig, Metro Manila. The seminar
control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will was about the Barangay Livelihood Program of the
power. Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS), the Metro Manila
Commission (MMC), and the Kilusang Kabuhayan at
Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes Kaunlaran (KKK). Under the program, the barangays in
existing only in the honest belief of the accused. It is Metro Manila could avail of loans of P10,000.00 per
relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, barangay to finance viable livelihood projects which the
the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and Barangay Councils would identify from the modules
intent. With his having acted under the belief that Jayson developed by the KKK Secretariat or which, in the
and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor absence of such modules, the Councils would choose
daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, subject to the evaluation/validation of the Secretariat.
the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of passion. After the seminar, Nizurtado received a check for
P10,000.00 intended for Barangay Panghulo and issued
The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to in his name. The check, however, could be encashed
have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, only upon submission to the Secretariat of a resolution
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly approved by the Barangay Council identifying the
concern for the personal safety of his own minor livelihood project in which the loan would be invested.
daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of He entrusted the check to Romero for safekeeping.
Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he
lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.
In one of its regular sessions, which was on the second
Saturday of each month, the Barangay Council of
It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized Panghulo discussed the project in which to invest the
doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the P10,000.00. Among the proposals was that of Romero
petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should that a barangay service center be established. But the
consider all possible circumstances in his favor. meeting ended without the Councilmen agreeing on any
livelihood project.
Penalty: Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum
period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any A few days after the meeting, Nizurtado got back the
aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating check from Romero, saying that he would return it
circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the because, as admitted by Nizurtado during the trial, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to Councilmen could not agree on any livelihood project.
the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, the Nizurtado signed a receipt dated August 4, 1983, for the
petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of check "to be returned to the Metro Manila Commission."
arresto menor.
After a few more days, Nizurtado asked Romero to sign
4. Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan & People an unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph form. All
the blank spaces in the form were unfilled-up, except
Facts: Sometime in 1983 and 1984, accused Felix those at the bottom which were intended for the names
Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay of the Barangay Councilmen, Secretary, and Captain,
Panghulo of Malabon, Metro Manila and discharged his which were already filled-up and signed by Councilmen
functions as such. Marcelo Sandel, Jose Bautista, Alfredo Aguilar, Alfredo

141
 AB
Dalmacio, F.A. Manalang (the alleged Barangay (Exhibit C and C-1), Project Location Map (Exhibit E),
Secretary), and Nizurtado. In asking Romero to sign, and Promissory Note
Nizurtado said that the MMC was hurrying up the matter
and that the livelihood project to be stated in the (Exhibit F).
resolution was that proposed by Romero — barangay
service center. Trusting Nizurtado, Romero affixed his The application for loan having been approved, the
signature above his typewritten name. When he did so, Promissory Note (Exhibit F) was re-dated from August to
the blank resolution did not yet bear the signatures of October 18, 1983, placed in the name of the Samahang
Councilmen Santos Gomez and Ceferino Roldan. Kabuhayan ng Panghulo represented by Nizurtado, and
made payable in two equal yearly amortizations of
The blank resolution having already been signed by P5,000.00 each from its date. The purpose of the loan
Romero, Nizurtado asked him to talk with Gomez and was stated to be
secure the latter's signature. Romero obliged and upon
his pleading that his proposed barangay service center T-Shirt Manufacturing of round neck shirts of various
would be the one written in the blank resolution, Gomez sizes and colors.
signed. But before he returned the resolution, he had it
machine copied. The machine copy is now marked
Exhibit J. Nizurtado encashed the check on the same day, October
18, 1983, and re-lent the cash proceeds to himself,
Sandel, Aguilar, Bautista, Dalmacio, and Roldan at
Unknown to Romero and Gomez, the blank but signed P1,000.00, and to Manalang and Oro Soledad, Barangay
resolution was later on accomplished by writing in the Court Secretary and Barangay Secretary, respectively,
blank space below the paragraph reading: at P500.00 each.

WHEREAS, the Barangay Council now in this session On April 25, 1984, Nizurtado who was then on leave
had already identified one livelihood project with the wrote Sandel, then acting Barangay Captain, informing
following title and description: him that per record, he, Romero, and Gomez had not
made any remittance for the account of their P1,000.00
the following: loans from the barangay livelihood fund of P10,000.00
and advising him to collect, through the Secretary or
Title : T-shirt Manufacturing Treasurer.

Description : Manufacture of round neck T-shirts of Since Romero and Gomez had not borrowed any
amount from the said fund, they told Sandel to ask
various sizes and colors. Nizurtado if he had any proof of their alleged loans. So
Sandel wrote Nizurtado on May 2, 1984, but the latter
did not answer.
The other blank spaces in the resolution were also filled-
up. Thus "Panghulo," "Brgy. Hall," and "August 25, 1983"
were typewritten in the spaces for the name of the This attempt to collect from Romero and Gomez
Barangay, the place where and the date when the prompted them to make inquiries. They learned that the
council meeting took place, respectively. In the blank check for P10,000.00 was indeed encashed by
spaces for the names of the members of the Council Nizurtado and that the blank resolution which they had
who attended the meeting were typewritten the names of signed was filled-up to make it appear that in a Council
meeting where all councilmen were present on August
25, 1983, T-shirt manufacturing was adopted as the
Felix Nizurtado Barangay Captain
livelihood project of Panghulo. But no such meeting
occurred on that day or on any other day. Neither was
Marcelo Sandel Barangay Councilman Nizurtado authorized by the Council to submit T-shirt
Manufacturing as the livelihood project of Panghulo.
Alfredo Aguilar Barangay Councilman
On August 9, 1984, Romero and Gomez lodged their
Santos Gomez Barangay Councilman complaint against Nizurtado with the Office of the
Tanodbayan. After due preliminary investigation, this
Jose Bautista Barangay Councilman case was filed.

Alfredo Dalmacio Barangay Councilman As of September 7, 1984, the members of the Council
who had received P1,000.00 each, as well as Bacani
Ceferino Roldan Barangay Councilman (also referred to as Manalang) and Soledad who had
received P500.00 each had paid their respective loans to
Nizurtado who, in turn, remitted the payments to the
The word "none" was inserted in the space intended for
MMC on these dates:
the names of the Councilmen who did not attend. The
resolution was given the number "17" series of "1983."
Finally, the last line before the names and signatures of April 16, 1984 P1,450.00
the Councilmen was completed by typewriting the date
so that it now reads August 14, 1984 3,550.00

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED this 25th day of August, September 7, 1984 3,000.00

1983.
————
The resolution as fully accomplished is now marked
Exhibit D. Total P8,000.00

Other supporting documents for the encashment of the In June 1987, after demands for payment, Dalmacio
check of P10,000.00 were also prepared, signed, and remitted the balance of P2,000.00 from his pocket
filed by Nizurtado. They were: Project Identification because, as acting Barangay Captain, he did not want to
(Exhibit B), Project Application in which the borrower leave the Barangay with an indebtedness.
was stated to be Samahang Kabuhayan ng Panghulo

142
 AB
On the basis of its above findings, the Sandiganbayan direction of the gunshot5, he saw a man about five
convicted the accused of the offense charged. meters away wearing a black bonnet and a long-sleeved
camouflage uniform and holding a long firearm. He also
Issue: 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
Ruling: The Sandiganbayan has considered the
heard Bryan shouting for help. When he went out to
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
investigate, he saw the dead bodies of Warlito, Ofelia,
restitution in favor of Nizurtado.
and Trisha.
Deputy Clerk of Court Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, on 17
Warlito Jr. also testified that he heard gunshots coming
January 1989, has certified to the voluntary surrender of
from outside their house. When he went out of the
the accused thusly:
bathroom, Bryan told him that appellant gunned down
their parents and his niece. In his cross-examination,
CERTIFICATION Warlito, Jr. claimed to have seen the appellant shooting
at the porch of their house.7
THIS CERTIFIES that accused FELIX NIZURTADO in
criminal Case No: 13304 voluntarily surrendered before Police Superintendent Benjamin M. Lusad (P/Supt.
this court on JANUARY 17, 1989 and posted his bail Lusad), chief of the provincial intelligence and
bond in said case. investigation branch of Ilocos Norte, testified that at 7:00
a.m. of December 7, 2004, he conducted an
Manila, Philippines, JANUARY 17, 1989 investigation and an ocular inspection at the crime
scene. He found bloodstains on the floor of the porch,
(sgd.) the cadavers of the victims laid side by side in the sala,
and bullet holes in the cemented portion at the front of
LUISABEL ALFONSO CORTEZ the house below the window gril1.8 During his interview
with Bryan, the latter pointed to appellant as the
gunman.9
Deputy Clerk of Court
SPOl Eugenio Navarro (SPOl Navarro) also testified that
Voluntary surrender (Art. 13, par. 7, Revised Penal
he went to the crime scene together with Senior Police
Code), therefore, may thus be treated as a modifying
Inspector Arnold Dada, P02 Danny Ballesteros, and
circumstance independent and apart from restitution of
SPO1 Lester Daoang, where they found 13 spent shells
the questioned funds by petitioner (Art. 13, par. 10,
and slugs of a caliber .30 carbine. Police Superintendent
Revised Penal Code). We are convinced, furthermore,
Philip Camti Pucay who conducted the ballistic
that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a
examination confirmed that the recovered shells and
wrong as that committed. (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal
slugs were fired from a caliber .30 carbine.
Code), entitling him to three distinct mitigating
circumstances.
Version of the Defense
5. People vs. Sibbu
The appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
Appellant's father-in-law, Eladio Ruiz (Eladio), testified
Facts:
that on December 6, 2004, appellant did not leave their
house because they had a visitor, Elpidio Alay (Elpidio);
Version of the Prosecution moreover, appellant tended to his child. Eladio stated
that the distance between his house and Warlito's is
Bryan Julian (Bryan), the private complainant in Criminal approximately two kilometers and that it would take an
Case No. 11722 and a common witness to all the cases, hour to negotiate the distance by foot.10
testified that between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. of December 6,
2004, he was with his three-year old daughter, Trisha Eufrecina Ruiz (Eufrecina), mother-in-law of the
May Julian (Trisha), the victim in Criminal Case No. appellant, also testified that appellant had been living
11721; his mother Ofelia Julian (Ofelia), the victim in with th.em for two years before he was arrested.11 She
Criminal Case No. 11723; and his father, Warlito Julian narrated that on December 6, 2004, appellant did not
(Warlito), the victim in Criminal Case No. 11724 in the leave their house the whole night as he was tending to
azotea of his parents' house in Barangay Elizabeth, his sick child. She also claimed that they had a visitor
Marcos, llocos Norte when he saw from a distance of who delivered firewood. Eufrecina alleged that appellant
about five meters a person in camouflage unifo1m with a did not own any firearm and that he did not know Benny.
long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet
over his head. When the armed man inched closer to the
Elpidio testified that on December 6, 2004, he went to
house, he tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing Bryan
the house of Eladio to deliver a wooden divider.12 He
the opportunity to see his face; Bryan had a clear look at
arrived at around 6:00 p.m. and left at 7:00 a.m. the
the armed man because there were Christmas lights
following day. Elpidio stated that the appellant did not
hanging from the roof of their porch. Bryan recognized
leave the house that night and that appellant was inside
the armed man as the appellant.6 Brian also saw two
the house when he heard explosions.
men in crouching position at a distance of three meters
away from the appellant. Fearing the worst, Bryan
shouted a warning to his family. Appellant then fired Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified
upon them killing Trisha, Ofelia and Warlito. that on December 6, 2004, he never left the house of his
in-laws because he was taking care of his sick son. He
claimed to have heard the explosions but thought that
Bryan ran inside the house where he saw his brother,
those were sounds of firecrackers since it was nearing
Warlito Julian, Jr. (Warlito Jr.) coming out of the
Christmas.13 Appellant denied having any
bathroom. Bryan then proceeded to the pigpen at the
misunderstanding with the Julian family, or knowing
back of the house to hide.
Bryan and Benny personally, or possessing camouflage
clothing.
Another prosecution witness, Eddie Bayudan (Eddie),
testified that on December 6, 2004, he was by a well
Issue:
near his house when he heard gunshots coming from the
house of Warlito and Ofelia. When he turned towards the
Ruling:
143
 AB
I. Treachery III. Disguise

Appellant also questions the RTC's appreciation of the The use of disguise was likewise correctly appreciated
aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling. and as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
use of disguise. Citing People v. Catbagan,21 appellant
argues that "[t]reachery cannot be considered when Bryan testified that the appellant covered his face with a
there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to bonnet during the shooting incident There could be no
commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing; or other possible purpose for wearing a bonnet over
that the death of the victim was the result of appellant's face but to conceal his identity, especially
premeditation, calculation, or reflection." since Bryan and appellant live in the same barangay and
are familiar with each other.
We disagree. Treachery was correctly appreciated as
qualifying circumstance in the instant case. 6. People vs. Nazareno

Treachery is present when the offender commits any of Facts: On November 10, 1993 David Valdez (David),
the crimes against person, employing means, methods, Magallanes, and Francisco attended the wake of a
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and friend. While there, they drank liquor with accused
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself Nazareno and Saliendra.3 A heated argument ensued
arising from the defense which the offended party might between Magallanes and Nazareno but their
make."22 companions pacified them.4

The case of Catbagan has an entirely different factual On the following day, November 11, David, Magallanes,
context with the case at bar. In Catbagan, the accused and Francisco returned to the wake. Accused Nazareno
was a police officer who investigated reported gunshots and Saliendra also arrived and told the three not to mind
during an election gun ban in the residence of one of the the previous night’s altercation. At around 9:30 in the
victims. Prior to the shooting, Catbagan had no intention evening, while David, Francisco, and their friend, Aida
of killing anyone. It just so happened that during a Unos were walking on the street, Nazareno and
heated exchange, Cc1thagan drew his firearm and shot Saliendra blocked their path.5 Nazareno boxed
the victims. In this case however, before the shooting Francisco who fled but Saliendra went after him with a
incident, appellant was seen with a gun slung over his balisong.6 Francisco, who succeeded in hiding saw
neck and a bonnet covered his face to conceal his Nazareno hit David on the body with a stick while
identity. It is clear that appellant's purpose is to hmm and Saliendra struck David’s head with a stone.7 David ran
kill his victims. towards a gasoline station but Nazareno and Saliendra,
aided by some barangay tanods, caught up with him.8
In this case, the evidence on record reveals that at the As David fell, the barangay tanods took over the
time of the shooting incident, Warlito, Ofelia, Trisha, and assault.9 This took place as Magallanes stood about five
Bryan were at the porch of their house totally unaware of meters across the highway unable to help his friend.10
the impending attack. In addition, they were all unarmed Afterwards, Unos brought David to the hospital.11 Dr.
thus unable to mount a defense in the event of an attack. Rebosa performed surgery on David’s head but he died
On the other hand, appellant and his cohorts were on November 14, 1993 of massive intra-cranial
armed. They also surreptitiously approached the hemorrhage secondary to depressed fracture on his right
residence of the victims. Appellant, in particular, wore temporal bone12 in a form of blunt trauma.13
camouflage uniform to avoid detection. Although Bryan
was able to warn his family about the impending attack, On November 12, 1993 after David’s relatives reported
it was too late for the victims to scamper for safety or to the killing to the police, SPO1 Sinag investigated the
defend themselves. At the time Bryan became aware of case and took Unos’s statement.14 On November 15,
appellant's presence, the latter was already in the vicinity accompanied by SPO1 Bustamante and two other police
of about five meters. In fine, appellant employed officers, SPO1 Sinag went to the UST Hospital and took
deliberate means to ensure the accomplishment of his a look at David’s body, noting the wounds on his
purpose of killing his victims with minimal risk to his forehead.15 Subsequently, the officers went to the crime
safety. There can be no other conclusion than that the scene but found no witness there.
appellant's attack was treacherous.
In his defense, accused Nazareno claimed that he left
II. Dwelling his house at around 9:30 in the evening on November
11, 1993 to buy milk. While on a street near his house,
With regard to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, he noted a commotion taking place nearby. He then
the trial court correctly held: bumped into Saliendra. Nazareno proceeded home and
went to bed.16 His wife Isabel supported his testimony,
In the instant cases, the victims were at their azotea in claiming that she asked her husband on that night to buy
their house when accused Tirso Sibbu fired shots at milk for their children. When Nazareno returned home,
them. Tirso Sibbu was outside the house of the victims. he informed her of the commotion outside and how
Under these circumstances, the aggravating someone bumped into him.17
circumstance of dwelling can be appreciated against
Tirso Sibbu. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled: Unos testified that she saw Saliendra chasing David as
the latter hang on the rear of a running jeepney. She
xxxx claimed that she did not see Nazareno around the
place.18
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be
taken into account. Although the triggerman fired the On March 9, 2004, the RTC found Nazareno guilty
shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by abuse
this circumstance to be considered it is not necessary of superior strength and aggravated by treachery. The
that the accused should have actually entered the RTC sentenced Nazareno to suffer the penalty of
dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay P141,670.25
that the victim was attacked inside his own house, as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
although the assailant may have devised means to P50,000.00 as moral damages, without any subsidiary
perpetrate the assault from without x x x.23 imprisonment.19

144
 AB
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with about Dulin. But when she later on sought out Barangay
modification the decision of the RTC. 20 Finding no Captain Meman to ask him to confirm what he had told
treachery, it convicted Nazareno of murder qualified by her about Dulin’s vowing to kill her husband, Barangay
abuse of superior strength, hence, this appeal. Captain Meman’s response was: I’m sorry I cannot go
and declare what I have stated because I am afraid of
Issue: Whether or not a qualifying circumstance of FREDDIE and he will kill all those persons who will
abuse of superior strength attended the killing of David. testify in their favor.6

Ruling: The CA held that the killing of David should be Estelita mentioned of the heated discussion between her
characterized as one of murder qualified by abuse of husband and his nephew, Seong Bancud, in front of
superior strength. The Court finds no fault in this ruling. Danao’s house in April 1990. On that occasion, Dulin
wielded a knife with which he tried to stab her husband.
Dulin was pacified only when she went to the aid of her
There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors
husband, but she then heard Dulin saying: You will soon
purposely use excessive force rendering the victim
have your day, I will kill you.7
unable to defend himself. The notorious inequality of
forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor.
Batulan was attended to at the Cagayan Valley Regional
Hospital on August 22, 1990 by Dr. Macaraniag, who
Here, Nazareno and Saliendra evidently armed
said that the victim was in a state of shock from his 12
themselves beforehand, Nazareno with a stick and
stab wounds. Dr. Macaraniag was part of the three
Saliendra with a heavy stone. David was unarmed. The
teams that conducted the surgery on Batulan. He issued
two chased him even as he fled from them. And when
the Medico-Legal Certificate8 attesting that Batulan died
they caught up with him, aided by some unnamed
on August 24, 1990 at 12:15 a.m.; and that Batulan had
barangay tanods, Nazareno and Saliendra exploited
sustained several injuries.
their superior advantage and knocked the defenseless
David unconscious. He evidently died from head fracture
caused by one of the blows on his head. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in not considering
incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating
circumstance (Art. 69) in the event that the appreciation
7. People vs. Dulin
of a complete self-defense is unavailing.
Facts: Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan
Ruling: The accused is guilty only of homicide in a
Norte, Tuguegarao at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening
prosecution for murder where the record does not
of August 22, 1990 when a young man came running
substantiate the attendance of treachery. But he may not
from the house of Vicente Danao towards the house of
benefit from the privileged mitigating circumstance of
Batulan, shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had
incomplete self-defense if there was no unlawful
been stabbed. Tamayao rushed towards Danao’s house,
aggression from the victim. 
which was about 30 meters from his own house, and
there he saw Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already
prostrate face down. Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if Murder is the unlawful killing of any person attended by
kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was any of the circumstances listed Article 248 of the
holding Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and Revised Penal Code. Treachery, which was alleged in
thrusting the knife at the latter with his right hand. Seeing the information, is one such qualifying circumstance.
this, Tamayao ran towards Batulan’s house to inform
Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who was his aunt, There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
about the incident. He went home afterwards. crimes against persons, employing means and methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly
Tamayao mentioned of the long-standing grudge and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself
between Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them fighting arising from the defense which the offended party might
in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two make.
occasions: He will soon have his day and I will kill him.4
Based on the established facts, Dulin and Batulan
Cabalza, a barangay tanod, was in his house around grappled for control of the weapon Batulan had initially
10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 when he wielded against Dulin, who divested Batulan of it and ran
heard the commotion in Danao’s house which was facing with it into the house of Danao, with Batulan in
his house. It was Carolina, Danao’s daughter, screaming immediate pursuit. They continued to grapple for the
for help. He thus sought out a fellow barangay tanod. On weapon inside the house of Danao, and it was at that
his return to the scene, he found Batulanat the door of point when Dulin stabbed Batulan several times.
Danao’s house, with Dulin wielding a sharp pointed
instrument, about 6-7 inches long. Fearing for his safety, Under the circumstances, treachery should not be
he rushed to the Barangay Hall to seek the assistance of appreciated in the killing of Batulan because the
Edwin Cabalza and Nanding Buenaflor to bring Batulan stabbing by Dulin did not take Batulan by surprise
to the Provincial Hospital in Carig, Tuguegarao.5 due to his having been sufficiently forewarned of
Dulin’s impending assault, and being thus afforded
Estelita recalled that Tamayao went to her house around the opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or
10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 to inform even to recover control of the weapon from Dulin.
her that Dulin had stabbed her husband in Danao’s
house. She rushed to Danao’s house but fainted on the
way. Upon regaining consciousness, she learned that AGGRAVATING
her husband had been rushed to the hospital. On her
way to the hospital, she met Barangay Captain Loreto
CIRCUMSTANCES
Meman, who told her: Finally, Freddie Dulin killed your
husband as he vowed to do. At the hospital, she was told 1. Fantastico vs. Malicse Sr.
that her husband had sustained two wounds in the back
and several stab wounds in the front, and was being Facts: On the afternoon of June 27, 1993, Elpidio
attended to at the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was outside the house of his sister
before he expired. Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita) in Pandacan, Manila when all
of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's son, Winston, throwing
Estelita said that Barangay Captain Meman went to her invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio confronted Isabelita but
husband’s wake and repeated what he had said to her she also cursed him, which prompted the former to slap
145
 AB
the latter. On that occasion, Elpidio was under the The said injuries inflicted on the complainant after he
influence of alcohol. went back to his sister Isabelita's house. When he kicked
the door, the melee began. And the sequence of the
The Barangay Chairman heard what transpired and went injuries is proven by victim's testimony. But it was a
to the place where the commotion was taking place in lopsided attack as the victim was unarmed, while his
order to pacify those who were involved. Elpidio was attackers were all armed (rattan stick, tomahawk and
eventually persuaded to go home where he drank some lead pipe). And the victim was also drunk. This
coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went back to the house of establishes the element of abuse of superior strength.
Isabelita to offer reconciliation. On his way there, he The suddenness of the blow inflicted by Salvador on
passed by the house of Kagawad Andy Antonio and Elpidio when he entered the premises show that the
requested the latter to accompany him, but was instead former was ready to hit the victim and was waiting for
told to go back home, leaving Elpidio to proceed alone. him to enter. It afforded Elpidio no means to defend
himself. And Salvador consciously adopted the said
actuation. He hit Elpidio twice on the head. Treachery is
Upon reaching Isabelita's house, Elpidio saw the
present in this case and must be considered an
former's son, Titus Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law
aggravating circumstance against Salvador Iguiron.
Gary Fantastico (Gary) and asked the two where he can
find their parents. Titus and Gary responded, “putang ina
mo, and kulit mo, lumayas ka, punyeta ka.” III. Abuse of superior strength

In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio The abuse of superior strength was appreciated as a
kicked the door open and saw Isabelita's elder son, qualifying circumstance.
Salvador Iguiron (Salvador) behind the door holding a
rattan stick or arnis. Salvador hit Elpidio on the right side Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is
of his head that forced the latter to bow his head but a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
Salvador delivered a second blow that hit Elpidio on the the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
right eyebrow. Salvador attempted to hit Elpidio for the strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
third time but the latter got hold of the rattan stick and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission
the two wrestled on the floor and grappled for the of the crime."24 "The fact that there were two persons
possession of the same rattan stick. Then Titus ran who attacked the victim does not per se establish that
towards the two and sprayed something on Elpidio's the crime was committed with abuse of superior
face. Not being able to free himself from the clutches of strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of
Salvador and to extricate himself, Elpidio bit Salvador's the aggressors and the victim."25 The evidence must
head. establish that the assailants purposely sought the
advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use
Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a this advantage.
tomahawk axe when the latter was about to go out of the
house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to 2. People vs. Bokingco
take the tomahawk axe from Gary. Elpidio walked away
from Titus but Gary, still armed with the tomahawk axe Facts: The victim, Noli Pasion (Pasion) and his wife,
and Salvador, with his arnis, including Titus, chased him. Elsa, were residing in a house along Mac Arthur
Highway in Balibago, Angeles City. Pasion owned a
Roland (Rolly) Villanueva, without any warning, hit pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also
Elpidio on the back of his head with a lead pipe which maintained two (2) rows of apartment units at the back of
caused the latter to fall on the ground. Elpidio begged his his house. The first row had six (6) units, one of which is
assailants to stop, but to no avail. Salvador hit him Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Dante Vitalicio
countless times on his thighs, legs and knees using the (Vitalicio), Pasion’s brother-in-law, while the other row
rattan stick. While he was simultaneously being beaten was still under construction at the time of his death.
up by Salvador, Titus, Gary, Rolly, Nestor, Eugene and Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were
Tommy, he tried to cover his face with his arm. Gary hit among the 13 construction workers employed by Pasion.
him with the tomahawk axe on his right leg, between the
knees and the ankle of his leg, which caused the fracture The prosecution’s evidence shows that at around 1:00
on his legs and knees. Rolly hit Elpidio's head with a a.m. on 29 February 2000, Vitalicio was spin-drying his
lead pipe, while Tommy hit him with a piece of wood on clothes inside his apartment when Pasion came from the
the back of his shoulder. front door, passed by him and went out of the back door.
A few minutes later, he heard a commotion from
Thereafter, a certain “Mang Gil” tried to break them off Apartment No. 3. He headed to said unit to check. He
but Titus and Gary shouted at him: “Huwag makialam, peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
away ng mag-anak ito” and the two continued to maul something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco
Elpidio. The people who witnessed the incident shouted allegedly pushed open the screen door and attacked him
“maawa na kayo” but they only stopped battering him with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued and
when a bystander fainted because of the incident. Vitalicio was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s
Elpidio then pretended to be dead. It was then that neck and managed to push him away. Bokingco tried to
concerned neighbors approached him and rushed him to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co-
the emergency room of the Philippine General Hospital worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by
(PGH). his wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen of
Apartment No. 3. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No. 3
Issue: and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor.
Pasion and Vitalicio were brought to the hospital. Pasion
expired a few hours later while Vitalicio was treated for
Ruling:
his injuries.
I. Treachery
Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on
the second floor of the house when she heard banging
In this particular case, there was no treachery. There is sounds and her husband’s moans. She immediately got
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes off the bed and went down. Before reaching the kitchen,
against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in Col blocked her way. Elsa asked him why he was inside
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure their house but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed
its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her
defense which the offended party might make. 
146
 AB
chin. Elsa was wounded when she bowed her head to be conceded that he enjoyed the trust and confidence of
avoid the tear gas. Col then instructed her to open the Pasion. However, there was no showing that he took
vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she advantage of said trust to facilitate the commission of the
does not know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering crime.
him money but Col dragged her towards the back door
by holding her neck and pulling her backward. Before Penalty:
they reached the door, Elsa saw Bokingco open the
screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay na siya." 3. People vs. Tabarnero
Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco.
Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw
her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood. Facts: Gary, a 22-year-old construction worker at the
time of his testimony in June 2001, testified that he
stayed in Ernesto’s house from 1997 to 1999, as he and
Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Mary Jane were living together. Mary Jane is the
Lucina Dayaon, jotted down notes during the preliminary daughter of Teresita Acibar, the wife7 of Ernesto.
investigation. She attests that Bokingco admitted that he However, Gary left the house shortly before the October
conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned 23, 1999 incident because of a misunderstanding with
the killing several days before because they got "fed up" Ernesto when the latter allegedly stopped the planned
with Pasion. marriage of Gary and Mary Jane, who was pregnant at
that time.
Issue:
On October 23, 1999, Gary was still allegedly in his
Ruling: house in Longos, Malolos, Bulacan at around 11:40 p.m.
with his friend, Richard Ulilian; his father, co-appellant
I. Treachery Alberto; his mother, Elvira; and his brother, Jeffrey.
Overcome with emotion over being separated from Mary
We agree with appellants that treachery cannot be Jane, HeGary then went to Ernesto’s house, but was not
appreciated to qualify the crime to murder in the absence able to enter as no one went out of the house to let him
of any proof of the manner in which the aggression was in. He instead shouted his pleas from the outside, asking
commenced. For treachery to be appreciated, the Ernesto what he had done wrong that caused Ernesto to
prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the break him and Mary Jane up, and voicing out several
victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that times that he loved Mary Jane and was ready to marry
the offender consciously adopted the particular means, her. When he Gary was about to leave, the gate opened
method or form of attack employed by him. and Ernesto purportedly struck him with a lead pipe.
Ernesto was aiming at Gary’s head, but the latter
blocked the blow with his hands, causing his left index
II. Evident premeditation
finger to be broken. Gary embraced Ernesto, but the
latter strangled him. At that point, Gary felt that there
Bokingco admitted in open court that he killed was a bladed weapon tucked at Ernesto’s back. Losing
Pasion.31 But the admitted manner of killing is control of himself, Gary took the bladed weapon and
inconsistent with evident premeditation. stabbed Ernesto, although he cannot recall how many
times he did so.8
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the
prosecution must establish the confluence of the According to Gary, Ernesto fell to the ground, and
following requisites: (a) the time when the offender was pleaded, "saklolo, tulungan niyo po ako" three times.
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly Gary was stunned, and did not notice his father, co-
indicating that the offender clung to his determination; appellant Alberto, coming. Alberto asked Gary, "anak,
and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the ano ang nangyari?" To which Gary responded "nasaksak
determination and the execution of the crime to allow ko po yata si Ka Erning," referring to Ernesto. Gary and
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.32  Alberto fled, ran, since they were afraid allegedly out of
fear.9
It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill
was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it Gary denied that he and Alberto conspired to kill
was carried out.   Ernesto. Gary claims that it was he and Ernesto who had
a fight, and that he had no choice but to stab Ernesto,
In the instant case, no proof was shown as to how and who was going to kill him.10
when the plan to kill was devised. Bokingco admitted in
court that he only retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit Gary’s sister, Gemarie Tabarnero, testified that she was
him in the head.34 Despite the fact that Bokingco a childhood friend of Mary Jane. Gemarie attested that
admitted that he was treated poorly by Pasion, the Mary Jane was Gary’s girlfriend from 1995 to 1999.
prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the Sometime in 1999, however, Gary and Mary Jane were
attack. prevented from talking to each other. During that time,
Gary was always sad and appeared catatonic,
III. Nighttime dumbfounded, sometimes mentioning Mary Jane’s name
and crying.11
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of
the crime is anchored on the presumption that there was On the night of the incident on October 23, 1999,
evident premeditation. Having ruled however that evident Gemarie observed that Gary was crying and seemed
premeditation has not been proved, the aggravating perplexed. Gary told Gemarie that he was going to
circumstance of nighttime cannot be properly Ernesto’s house to talk to Ernesto about Mary Jane.
appreciated. There was no evidence to show that Gary was crying and dumbfounded at that time. Gary
Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the allegedly did not bring anything with him when he went
commission of the offense. to Ernesto’s house.12

IV. Abuse of confidence Issue:

Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an Ruling:

aggravating circumstance in this case. Taking into
account that fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may
147
 AB
I. Mitigating circumstance: Voluntary However, even assuming for the sake of argument that
surrender treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength would
Voluntary surrender was not appreciated in this case. nevertheless qualify the killing to murder.

The trial court did not err in disregarding the mitigating Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there
circumstance of voluntary surrender. To benefit an is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
accused, the following requisites must be proven, the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength
namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
(2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in selected or taken advantage of in the commission of the
authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. crime (People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA 233 [1994]).
When four armed assailants, two of whom are accused-
appellants in this case, gang up on one unarmed victim,
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous,
it can only be said that excessive force was purposely
showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
sought and employed. (Emphasis ours.)
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the
trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search Despite being alleged in the Information, this
and capture. Voluntary surrender presupposes circumstance was not considered in the trial court as the
repentance. same is already absorbed in treachery. The act of the
accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were
holding him clearly shows the deliberate use of
The records show that Gary surrendered on April 22,
excessive force out of proportion to the defense
2001.48 The commitment order commanding that he be
available in to the person attacked. In People v.
detained was issued on April 24, 2001.49 The surrender
Gemoya,62 we held:
was made almost one year and six months from the
October 23, 1999 incident, and almost one year and one
month from the issuance of the warrant of arrest against 4. People vs. Vilbar
him on March 27, 2000.50 We, therefore, rule that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be Facts:
credited to Gary.
Version of the Prosecution
II. Mitigating circumstance: Incomplete self-
defense Maria Liza testified that in the evening of May 5, 2000,
she was watching her child and at the same time
The justifying circumstance of self-defense and the attending to their store located in the Ormoc City public
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense were market. It was a small store with open space for tables
not appreciated in this case. for drinking being shared by other adjacent stores. At
around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, her husband,
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without Guilbert Patricio (Guilbert) arrived from work. He was
which there can be no self-defense, whether complete or met by their child whom he then carried in his arms.
incomplete.42 There is incomplete self-defense when Moments later, Guilbert noticed a man urinating at one of
the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is the tables in front of their store. The man urinating was
present, and any of the other two essential requisites for among those engaged in a drinking spree in a nearby
self-defense.43 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
Having failed to prove the indispensable element of
paid no attention and continued relieving himself.
unlawful aggression, Gary is not entitled to the mitigating
Guilbert then put down his child when the accused rose
circumstance, regardless even assuming of the
from his seat, approached Guilbert, drew out a knife and
presence of the other two elements of self-defense.
stabbed him below his breast. The accused, as well as
his companions, scampered away while Guilbert called
III. Aggravating circumstance: Treachery for help saying "I’m stabbed." At that time, she was
getting her child from Guilbert and about two feet away
The Solicitor General argues that treachery was amply from the accused. She easily recognized the accused
demonstrated by the restraint upon Ernesto, which because he would sometimes drink at their store.
effectively rendered him defenseless and unable to Guilbert was immediately brought to the hospital where
effectively repel, much less evade, the assault.59 he later expired 11:35 of the same evening.

We agree with the Solicitor General. Version of the Defense

Treachery is defined under Article 14(16) of the Revised Denial was the accused’s main plea in exculpating
Penal Code, which provides: himself of the charge that he killed Guilbert. He claimed
that in the evening of May 5, 2000, he and his wife went
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the to the public market (new building) to collect receivables
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, out of the sale of meat. Afterwards, they took a short cut
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and passing through the public market where they chanced
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself upon his wife’s acquaintances who were engaged in a
arising from the defense which the offended party might drinking spree while singing videoke. Among them were
make. Dodong Danieles (Dodong for brevity) and his younger
brother. They invited him (the accused) and his wife to
Emerito had testified that he saw Ernesto being held by join them. While they were drinking, Dodong had an
two persons, while Gary and Alberto were stabbing him altercation with Guilbert that stemmed from the latter’s
with fan knives with a fan knife. admonition of Dodong’s younger brother who had earlier
urinated at the Patricio’s store premises. Suddenly,
Dodong assaulted Guilbert and stabbed him. Fearing
IV. Aggravating circumstance: Abuse of
that he might be implicated in the incident, the accused
superior strength
fled and went to the house of his parents-in-law.
Thereafter, he went back to the market for his wife who
was no longer there. When he learned that the victim
148
 AB
was brought to the Ormoc District Hospital, he went was not shown that he consciously adopted the mode of
there to verify the victim’s condition. He was able to talk attacking the victim from behind to facilitate the killing without
with the mother and the wife of Guilbert as well as the risk to himself. Accordingly, we hold that accused-appellant
police. He was thereafter invited to the precinct so that is guilty of homicide only.29
the police can get his statement. The next day, the
parents of Dodong Danieles came to his parents-in-law’s Similar to Rivera and the cases cited therein, the prosecution
house to persuade him not to help the victim’s family. He in the instant case merely showed that accused-appellant
declined. Half a month later, he was arrested and attacked Guilbert suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to
charged for the death of Guilbert Patricio. prove that accused-appellant consciously adopted such
mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing
Issue: without risk to himself.

Ruling: We agree with the Court of Appeals that While it appears that the attack upon the victim was sudden,
accused-appellant is guilty only of homicide in the the surrounding circumstances attending the stabbing
absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. incident, that is, the open area, the presence of the victim’s
families and the attending eyewitnesses, works against
I. Treachery 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
We agree with accused-appellant that the qualifying
nonchalantly stabbed the victim in a public market at 7:00
circumstance of treachery was not established.
o’clock in the evening. The place was well-lighted and
Surveying the leading decisions on this question, in
teeming with people. He was indifferent to the presence of
People v. Romeo Magaro we recently stated:
the victim’s family or of the other people who could easily
identify him and point him out as the assailant. He showed
In People v. Magallanes, this Court held: no concern that the people in the immediate vicinity might
retaliate in behalf of the victim. In fact, the attack appeared to
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of have been impulsively done, a spur of the moment act in the
the crimes against the person, employing means, heat of anger or extreme annoyance. There are no
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend indications that accused-appellant deliberately planned to
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk stab the victim at said time and place. Thus, we can
to himself arising from the defense which the offended reasonably conclude that accused-appellant, who at that
party might make. Thus, for treachery or alevosia to be time was languishing in his alcoholic state, acted brashly and
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the impetuously in suddenly stabbing the victim. Treachery just
prosecution must establish the concurrence of two (2) cannot be appreciated.
conditions: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the Penalty: The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of
offender consciously adopted the particular means, homicide is reclusion temporal.31 Under the Indeterminate
method or form of attack employed by him. . . . Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that
which could be properly imposed in view of the attending
. . . where the meeting between the accused and the circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of
victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised
there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and Penal Code.
unexpected. As has been aptly observed the accused
could not have made preparations for the attack, . . .; Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this
and the means, method and form thereof could not case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the
therefore have been thought of by the accused, because range of reclusion temporal in its medium term which has a
the attack was impulsively done. duration of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1)
day, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months; and that
Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere the minimum should be within the range of prision mayor
suddenness of the attack. . . . In point is the following which has a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to
pronouncement we made in People v. Escoto: twelve (12) years. Thus, the imposition of imprisonment from
twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
We cannot presume that treachery was present merely seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
from the fact that the attack was sudden. The temporal, as maximum, is in order.
suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to
support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to 5. People vs. Matibag
kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden
and the victim's helpless position was accidental. . . ." Facts:

In People v. Bautista, it was held: Version of the Prosecution

". . . The circumstance that an attack was sudden and At around 8:40 in the evening of March 27, 2005, Enrico
unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the Clar de Jesus Duhan (Duhan), who just came from a
element of alevosia necessary to raise homicide to murder, meeting with the other officers of the homeowners’
where it did not appear that the aggressor consciously association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along
adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of Iron Street in Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City
the killing without risk to himself. Treachery cannot be when Matibag confronted Duhan, and asked, "Ano bang
appreciated if the accused did not make any preparation to pinagsasasabi mo?" Duhan replied "Wala," and without
kill the deceased in such manner as to insure the warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan on
commission of the killing or to make it impossible or difficult the left cheek and causing him to stagger backwards.
for the person attacked to retaliate or defend himself. . . ." Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan, who fell
face-first on the pavement. While Duhan remained in
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we hold that the that position, Matibag shot him several more times. PO2
prosecution has not proven that the killing was committed Tom Falejo, a member of the Philippine National Police,
with treachery. Although accused-appellant shot the victim positively identified Matibag and stated on record that he
from behind, the fact was that this was done during a heated arrested the latter on the night of March 27, 2005. Dr.
argument. Accused-appellant, filled with anger and rage, Antonio S. Vertido who conducted an autopsy on Duhan
apparently had no time to reflect on his actions.1âwphi1 It

149
 AB
confirmed that the latter suffered gunshot wounds in the was recovered from the victim.34 Hence, by these
head and chest which led to his death. accounts, Matibag’s allegation of unlawful aggression
and, consequently, his plea of self-defense cannot be
Version of the Defense sustained. The foregoing considered, the Court upholds
Matibag’s conviction for the crime of Murder, qualified by
treachery, as charged.
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’ Penalty:
association. Wanting to settle a previous
misunderstanding, Matibag approached Duhan and 6. People vs. Feliciano Jr.
extended his hand as a gesture of reconciliation.
However, Duhan pushed it away and said, "putang ina Facts: Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis Venturina,
mo, ang yabang mo," thereby provoking Matibag to Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix
punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull Tumaneng,7 and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all members
something from his waist and fearing that it was a gun of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at
and Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately around 12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they were having lunch at
drew his own gun, shot Duhan, and hurriedly left the Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main
place. Matibag went to see his police friend, Sgt. Narciso Library of the University of the Philippines,
Amante, to turn himself in, but the latter was unavailable Diliman, Quezon City.8 Suddenly, Dennis Venturina
at the time. As Matibag headed back home, he was shouted, "Brads, brods! 
stopped by police officers who asked if he was involved
in the shooting incident. He then readily admitted his
involvement.9
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma
Issue: Rho Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina
shouted, and he saw about ten (10) men charging
Ruling: toward them.10 The men were armed with baseball bats
and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with either
I. Treachery handkerchiefs or shirts.11 Within a few seconds, five (5)
of the men started attacking him, hitting him with their
Matibag is charged with the crime of Murder, which is lead pipes.12 During the attack, he recognized one of
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his
amended. In order to warrant a conviction, the mask fell off.
prosecution must establish by proof beyond reasonable
doubt that: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of
him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any of the Sigma Rho, he looked to his left when Venturina
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the shouted.20 He saw about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) men,
RPC; and (d) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide.21 most of who were wearing masks, running toward
them.21 He was stunned, and he started running.22 He
Under Article 14 of the RPC, there is treachery when the stumbled over the protruding roots of a tree.23 He got
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, up, but the attackers came after him and beat him up
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution with lead pipes and baseball bats until he fell down.24  
thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the Issue:
defense which the offended party might make.
Ruling:
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that
Matibag, who was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, I. Disguise
and without any provocation, punched and shot him on
the chest.26 Although the attack was frontal, the sudden It should be remembered that every aggravating
and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that information. Failure to state an aggravating
he was unarmed.27 Matibag also failed to prove that a circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be
heated exchange of words preceded the incident so as appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the
to forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of
his assailant.28 The deliberateness of Matibag’s act is "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
further evinced from his disposition preceding the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to
moment of execution. As the RTC aptly pointed out, that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
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, In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating
armed with a loaded handgun. circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the
accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he
carries out his crimes.
II. Justifying circumstance: Self-dense (in
relation to presence of aggravating
circumstance of treachery) The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial
evidence that tends to prove that the accused were
masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them
There was no self-defense in this case. from including disguise as an aggravating
circumstance.116 What is important in alleging disguise
Evidently, the treacherous manner by which Matibag as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
assaulted Duhan negates unlawful aggression in the concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of
sense above-discussed. As mentioned, the prosecution disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to
was able to prove that the attack was so sudden and sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of
unexpected, and the victim was completely defenseless. the offense they were being charged with, they tried to
On the other hand, Matibag’s version that he saw Duhan conceal their identity.
pull something from his waist (which thereby impelled his
reaction), remained uncorroborated. In fact, no firearm II. Treachery
150
 AB
Accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder, The rape charge was committed in the victim's dwelling
and there was treachery in the commission of the crime. at nighttime. Dwelling and nighttime are aggravating
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate circumstances in rape (People vs. Padilla 242 SCRA
court, the offense committed against Dennis Venturina 629). On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance
was committed by a group that took advantage of its of nighttime cannot be appreciated in the robbery charge
superior strength and with the aid of armed men. The because of (sic) the notion to commit the crime was
appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled out the
conceived only shortly when the rape was committed at
presence of treachery in the commission of the offense.
darkness. However, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling is a different story and should be considered.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against
opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend
or intimidation of person because this class of robbery
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this
case. can be committed without the necessity of trespassing
the sanctity of the offended party's house. Entrance into
7. People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, 20 April the dwelling house of the offended party is not an
2001 element of the offense (People vs. Cabato 160 SCRA
98). Finally, for sexually assaulting a married woman
Facts: At around 2:00 in the morning of February 11, thereby grievously wronged (sic) the institution of
1997, complainant Honorata Ong, who was then marriage, the imposition of exemplary damages by way
sleeping inside her house with her three daughters, was of example to deter others from committing the crime is
awakened by the sound of their door opening. She just (sic) warranted.
initially thought that it was her husband coming home
from work. When Honorata opened her eyes, however, (RTC Decision, pp. 5-6.)
she saw a man armed with a knife standing by her feet. Considering the presence of the aggravating
More terrifying, the man already had his pants and briefs circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, the trial court
down on his knees and he was pointing to her eldest imposed the supreme penalty of death on accused-
daughter. Alarmed, Honorata told the man not to touch appellant for the crime of rape.
her daughter. The man poked his knife at her and told
her to stand up and then was made to lie down on the However, a cursory examination of the Information filed
adjacent sofa. Thereafter, the man removed Honorata's against accused-appellant would show that the
panties and had sex with her. All this time, he had his aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling are
knife at Honorata's neck. Honorata noticed that the man not specified therein. Now, at the time the trial court
reeked of alcohol. After slaking his lust, Honorata's rendered its decision, the non-allegation of generic
assailant stood up then asked for money. Since the man aggravating circumstances in the information was
still had his knife pointed at her, Honorata could do immaterial, since the rule then prevailing was that
nothing but comply. She gave him the only money she generic aggravating circumstances duly proven in the
had, several bills amounting to P500.00. course of the trial could be taken into account by the trial
court in determining the proper imposable penalty even if
After threatening Honorata and her daughters with death such circumstances were not alleged in the information
if she reports the incident, the man left. Honorata, out of (People vs. Deberto, 205 SCRA 291 [1992]).
fear, could do nothing but close the door. Later that day,
however, Honorata mustered enough courage to narrate Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the appreciation by the
her defilement to her sister-in-law and upon describing trial court of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
him, Honorata's sister-in-law exclaimed that she knew a and nighttime, despite the non-allegation thereof in the
person living in Manapat Street fitting the description. Information, resulted in the imposition of the supreme
penalty of death upon accused-appellant.
That afternoon, Honorata, together with her husband,
reported the incident to the barangay captain. Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in appreciating the
Thereafter, the captain, along with two tanods patrolled aggravating circumstance of nighttime and dwelling.
the area and, on the next day, they managed to nab a
Ruling: Consequently, we hold that due to their non-
person who fits the description given by Honorata of her
allegation in the Information for rape filed against
assailant. When the suspect was brought to the
accused-appellant, the aggravating circumstances of
barangay hall for confrontation, he was positively
nighttime and dwelling cannot be considered in
identified by Honorata as the rapist. This person, later
raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant
identified as accused-appellant Edgar Legaspi y Libao,
from reclusion perpetua to death.
was thus detained by the police.
Parenthetically, the above rule is inapplicable for the
The next day, Honorata had herself medically examined
crime of robbery committed by accused-appellant, the
at the NBI but no evident signs of extra-genital physical
same not involving the imposition of the death penalty.
injuries were found on her body.
For said crime, what remains applicable is the old rule
RTC Ruling that generic aggravating circumstances if duly proven in
the course of the trial could be taken into account by the
In sum, we find that the trial court did not err in finding trial court in determining the proper imposable penalty,
Honorata's testimony to be clear, straightforward, and even if such circumstances were not alleged in the
worthy of credence, and consequently, in finding Information. Thus, for the crime of robbery, the trial court
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the correctly imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
crime of rape. months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to nine (9) years
We now come to the proper penalty. Under Article 335 of prision mayor, as maximum.
(now Article 266-B) of the Revised Penal Code, It is to be noted carefully that the rule on generic
"whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of aggravating circumstances has now been formalized in
a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took
shall be reclusion perpetua to death." effect on December 1, 2000. Section 8 of Rule 110 now
According to the trial court: provide that:

151
 AB
SECTION 8. Designation of the offense. — The circumstance of the immediate vindication of a grave
complaint or information shall state the designation of offense. Hence, the imposition of the death penalty was
the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or not warranted.
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no I. Treachery
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to Crime was one of murder, the qualifying circumstance of
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. treachery being present. The specific language of the
Likewise, Section 9 of the same Rule provides: Revised 'Penal Code calls for application: "There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
SECTION 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
omissions complained of as constituting the offense and in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
stated in ordinary and concise language and not from the defense which the offended party might make. 5
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common Magaso's situation was hopeless. Any defense he could
understanding to know what offense is being charged as have put up would be futile and unavailing. His hands
well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and were raised in surrender. That notwithstanding, he was
for the court to pronounce judgment. pistol-whipped. When lying prostrate on the ground, he
was stabbed. It must be remembered that, according to
Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as the testimonial evidence, there were two other persons
aggravating circumstances to be expressly and assisting the brothers Capalac. If they were not included
specifically alleged in the Complaint or Information, in the information, the explanation would appear to be
otherwise the same will not be considered by the court that they managed to elude capture. There was no risk,
even if proved during the trial. And this principle is therefore, to the aggressors, no hope for the victim. 6
applicable in all criminal cases, not only in cases were The trial court committed no error then in appreciating
the aggravating circumstance would increase the penalty the circumstance of treachery as being present.
to death. With this, the Court gives fair warning to
prosecutors that henceforth, they must prepare well- II. Evident premeditation
crafted information that allege the circumstances The lower court erred, however, in finding the
qualifying and aggravating the crimes charged, aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, of
otherwise the same will not be considered by the court in means being employed or circumstances brought about
determining the proper imposable penalty. to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, and of
8. People v. Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, 23 October the crime being committed with the offender taking
1982 advantage of his official position as having attended the
commission of the crime.
Facts: It happened on September 20, 1970 at around
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the scene of the gory As early as 1903, Justice Mapa, in United States v.
incident being a duly licensed cockpit in the City of Iligan. Alvares, 7 made clear that an aggravating circumstance
The aggressor, attempting to escape, was confronted by must be "as fully proven as the crime itself. 8 He added:
two brothers of Moises, Jesus Capalac, originally "Without clear and evident proof of their presence, the
included in the information but now deceased, and penalty fixed by the law for the punishment of the crime
appellant Mario Capalac. The attempt of Magaso to cannot be increased. 9 Moreover, insofar as evident
board a jeep was unsuccessful, he having alighted after premeditation is concerned, there is this relevant excerpt
two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he was from the same opinion: "The record contains no
completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised evidence showing that the defendant had, prior to the
his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not to be moment of its execution, resolved to commit the crime,
appeased. He was pistol-whipped by appellant Mario nor is there proof that this resolution was the result of
Capalac, being dealt several blows on the head and the meditation, calculation and persistence. 10 In People v.
face. After he had fallen to the ground, Jesus Capalac Mendova, 11 it was emphasized that it should not be
stabbed the deceased on the chest three or four times. "premeditation" merely; it is "evident" premeditation. 12 A
He was brought to the hospital where he died, the cause, recent decision, People v. Anin, 13 ruled that the
according to the coroner's report, being "hemorrhagic perpetration of a criminal act "evidently made in the heat
shock due to a wound of the heart." of anger" did not call for a finding that there was evident
premeditation. 14 What is required is that the offense was
The above facts are not open to dispute, the decision of "the result of cool and serene reflection."
the lower court and the briefs for both appellant and 15
appellee being substantially in agreement. After trial duly What was done by the brothers of Capala, cannot be
held, Mario Capalac was convicted of murder. The lower categorized as falling within the norm of means being
court found that the crime was committed with evident employed or circumstances being brought about to add
premeditation and treachery. The lower court also held ignominy to the natural effects of the act. It is well to
that appellant took advantage of his position as a police stress that they were prompted by their desire to avenge
officer and employed means or brought about their brother, They went after Magaso, the victim. They
circumstances which added ignominy to the natural assaulted him, relying on the weapons they carried with
effects of his act. It sentenced him to suffer the death them. Jesus stabbed him and appellant Mario pistol-
penalty. Hence, this case is before this Tribunal for whipped him. They did what they felt they had to do to
automatic review. 1 redress a grievance. It cannot be said, therefore, that
they deliberately employed means to add ignominy to
Issue: the natural effects of the act. It is quite apparent that all
they were interested in was to assure that there be
Ruling: As will be shown, there is no basis for reversal. retribution for what was done to their brother.
The judgment, however, calls for modification. Murder
was committed, the qualifying circumstance of alevosia III. Abuse of authority
being quite evident. The aggravating circumstances,
however, were not proved. Moreover, the lower court did The mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member
not take into consideration the existence of the mitigating of the police force certainly did not of itself justify that the
152
 AB
aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the
the offender of his public position be considered as barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an
present. armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant
fired more shots at him. Thereafter, accused Amor
He acted like a brother, instinctively reacting to what was Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand
undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin that could cause of Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran
the death of a loved one. It would be an affront to reason to succor her fallen husband.
to state that at a time like that and reacting as he did, he
purposely relied on his being a policeman to commit the Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina
act. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had his while accused Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares
pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito
accordingly. 16 That he was a policeman is of no who would come near him. Faustina and the other
relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility. relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares'
group chased them.
IV. Mitigating circumstance: Immediate
vindication of a grave offense The body of Calpito was autopsied by Dr. Bernardo
Layugan, who found that the victim sustained four bullet
There is another aspect of the decision that calls for wounds: (1) on the right lateral side of the arm fracturing
correction. The mitigating circumstance of immediate the humerus; (2) on the right lateral side of the thorax
vindication of a grave offense was not considered. between the 7th and 8th ribs with exit wound at the
sternum; (3) on the left side of the thorax, anterior,
There is no ambiguity in the language of the Revised between the 5th and 6th ribs; and (4) on the right fronto-
Penal Code: "That the act was committed in the parietal portion of the head "severing the skull and brain
immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one tissues" (Exh. "F"). Dr. Layugan opined that the victim
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, was in a standing position when he was shot by
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or someone positioned at his right.
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree. 17
Appellant invoked self-defense. He testified that he was
What was done was an immediate vindication of the issued a mission order on September 23, 1979 to
stabbing perpetrated by Magaso on appellant's brother investigate a report regarding the presence of
Moises. For relatively less serious crimes than this, this unidentified armed men in Barrio San Jose, Roxas,
Court has taken into consideration this mitigating Isabela. The following day, he was instructed by Sgt.
circumstance. 18 Certainly it seems probable that the Dominador Ignacio to get in touch with Nicanor
reason why, the lower court failed to do so was the fact Saludares who may be able to give him information on
that appellant was a member of the police force. That is the identities of the persons with unlicensed firearms in
not conclusive. What is decisive is the fact that the the place. When appellant met Nicanor Saludares on
brothers Capalac, responsive to what is a traditional September 29, 1979, he was informed that Jerry Calpito
norm of conduct, reacted in a manner which for them
had an unlicensed firearm.
was necessary under the circumstances. That was a
fulfillment of what family honor and affection require. The On October 5, 1979, Nicanor Saludares went to the P.C.
aggressor who did them wrong should not go Headquarters in Roxas and told appellant that it would
unpunished. This is not to justify what was done. It offers be best for him to see Jerry Calpito the following day as
though an explanation. At the same time, the rule of law,
a relative of the latter would be buried. The next day,
which frowns on an individual taking matters into his own
hands, requires that every circumstance in favor of an appellant went to Barangay San Jose, arriving there at
accused should not be ignored. That is to render justice 12 noon. Instead of going to the cemetery, he went to
according to law. This mitigating circumstance calls for the house of Nicanor Saludares. From there, they went
application. to the house of Enteng Teppang to attend the "pamisa."
While they were having lunch, Nick Saludares advised
Penalty: WHEREFORE, the accused is found guilty of appellant against confronting Calpito because it would
murder, but the decision of the lower court is hereby create a disturbance at the "pamisa." He also told
modified. The accused is sentenced to ten years and appellant that Calpito would surely pass his (Saludares)
one day of prision mayor minimum to seventeen years, house on his way home.
four months and one day of reclusion temporal
Appellant and Nicanor Saludares positioned themselves
maximum. In all other respects, the lower court decision
inside the yard of the latter. When appellant saw Calpito,
stands affirmed.
he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When
9. People v. Gapasin, G.R. No. 73489, 25 April 1994 Calpito was about three meters away from him, appellant
asked him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of
Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC, answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his
Branch XVI, Isabela in Criminal Case No. IV-781, finding firearm from the waist and fired twice at appellant. He
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder missed because appellant dropped to the ground
qualified by treachery, with the attendance of the simultaneously firing his armalite.
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the
aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public After fifteen minutes, the police arrived and took the
position and evident premeditation. The trial court body of the victim to the morgue. Appellant was brought
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to the P.C. Headquarters in Roxas, where he was
and to pay to the heirs of the late Jerry Calpito, Sr., the investigated.
sum of P88,596.00 as actual or compensatory damages;
Issue:
P30,000.00 as death indemnity; P20,000.00 as moral
damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the Ruling:
costs.
I. Justifying circumstance: Self-defense
According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and
Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang at Appellant's claim of self-defense is belied by the finding
about 2:00 P.M. of October 6, 1979 after attending the of the trial court that the victim was shot by someone
"pamisa" for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry who was standing on his right side. Appellant's version
that he was in front of the victim when the latter fired a
153
 AB
shot at him and that he retaliated while dropping on the generic aggravating circumstance of evident
ground, crumbles in the face of the physical evidence premeditation may be appreciated against appellant.
that the victim sustained two gunshot wounds which
entered the right side of his body and a gunshot wound Penalty: As such, the correct penalty would have been
on the right side of his head. The nature and number of death in accordance with Articles 248 and 64(3) of the
wounds inflicted by the appellant disprove the plea of Revised Penal Code Were it not for the fact that such
self-defense (People v. Bigcas, 211 SCRA 631 [1992]). penalty is constitutionally abhorrent. Hence, the proper
penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Had appellant and Nicanor Saludares, Sr. not intended
to harm the victim, they could have simply apprehended 10. People v. Tiongson, G.R. No. L-35123-24, 25 July
him. Or, having verified that Calpito possessed an 1984
unlicensed firearm, appellant could have reported the Facts: At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October
matter to his superiors so that warrants for Calpito's 26, 1971, the accused Rudy Tiongson escaped from the
arrest and the seizure of his unlicensed firearm could Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together
have been obtained. with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where
II. Treachery they were detained under the charge of Attempted
Homicide. While in the act of escaping, the said Rudy
Appellant contended that the crime committed is Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
homicide. The trial court correctly ruled that the crime of police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was guarding the said accused, and PC Constable Aurelio
indeed committed. Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao,
Oriental Mindoro, who went in pursuit of them.
Treachery attended the commission of the crime. The
two conditions to constitute treachery were present in the By reason thereof, Rudy Tiongson was charged with
case at bench, to wit: (a) the employment of means of Murder, in two separate informations.
execution that gives the person who is attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by
means of execution were deliberately or consciously counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both informations.
adopted (People v. Narit, 197 SCRA 334 [1991]). The trial court, however, did not render judgment
outright, but ordered the prosecution to present its
Appellant deliberately executed the act in such a way evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused to
that his quarry was unaware and helpless. This can be suffer the death penalty in each case, to indemnify the
gleaned from his act of waiting for the victim behind the heirs of the victims in the amount of P12,000.00 and to
hollow-block fence of Nicanor Saludares and shooting pay the costs.
the victim from his right side.
The death penalty having been imposed, the cases are
III. Evident premeditation now before the Court for mandatory review.

Evident premeditation was indubitably proven by the Issue:

evidence showing that the execution of the criminal case
was preceded by cool thought and reflection. Appellant's Ruling:
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the I. Treachery
space of time sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment was
shown (People v. Castor, 216 SCRA 410 [1992]). In the instant case, it does not appear how and in what
position the victim was when he was killed so that it
In view of the presence of treachery which qualified the cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted
killing as murder, the evident premeditation should be a mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or
considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance facilitate the commission of the offense without risk to
(People v. Fabros, 214 SCRA 694 [1992]). himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the
IV. Ignominy, abuse of superior strength, victim might put up.
abuse of authority According to the Revised Penal Code, 2 "there is
The information alleged three other generic aggravating treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
circumstances: ignominy, abuse of superior strength and against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
taking advantage of public position. The trial court in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of the to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
autopsy conducted by the doctor who failed to find any from the defense which the offended party might make."
other injuries such as bruises and contusions which may Pat. Nicandro Garcia of the Bulalacao police force
indicate that the victim was kicked by his assailants. It merely declared that he was in his house, about 15
also correctly held that treachery absorbed abuse of meters away from the municipal building when the
superior strength (People v. Moral, 132 SCRA 474 accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped
[1984]). from prison , 3 and he did not see the accused shoot
The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of Pat. Gelera. 4
public position as an aggravating circumstance. Police Chief Edwardo Borwangga did not also see the
Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, accused Rudy Tiongson shoot Pat. Gelera. He declared
committed the crime with an armalite which was issued that Pat. Gelera was already dead when he arrived at
to him when he received the mission order (People v. the municipal building in the afternoon of October 26,
Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951]). 1971. 5
V. Mitigating circumstance: Voluntary PC Sgt. Teotimo Saway, who led the pursuit of the
surrender escaped detainees, declared that he was in one of the,
Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's stores in front of the Bulalacao municipal building, about
favor but this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of 60 meters away, when he heard two (2) gunshots
taking advantage of public position. Therefore, only the coming from the direction of the municipal building, 6
and Pat. Gelera was already dead when he saw him. 7
154
 AB
Considering that PC Constable Canela had been Canela, the accused was alone against three armed
sufficiently forewarned of the presence of the appellant pursuers, namely: PC Sgt. Saway, PC Constable
in the vicinity and that he was not completely deprived of Canela, and Pat Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian by the
an opportunity to prepare and repel or avoid the name of Fred Barcelona. 18
aggression, treachery cannot be appreciated.
Penalty: As heretofore stated, the accused is guilty only
Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of Pat. of the crime of Homicide in the killing of PC Constable
Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder, was not Canela and Pat. Gelera. The Solicitor General
present, the crimes may only be punished as Homicide. recommends that the accused should be sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of from 8 years and 1 day to 14
II. Evident premeditation years and 8 months, with the accessory penalties, for
We also agree with the parties that the aggravating each homicide committed by him. The penalty
circumstances of (1) evident premeditation, (2) in recommended is within the range provided by law.
contempt of or with insult to public authorities, (3) WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused
uninhabited place, and (4) abuse of superior strength Rudy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer
were not present in the commission of the crimes. imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of
Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and
absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for
existed, the execution of which was preceded by each homicide committed by him, the judgment
deliberate thought and reflection. appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED.
The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is
Besides, with respect to the killing of PC Constable hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case.
Canela, only ten minutes passed from the time the
accused escaped from the Municipal Jail up to the time 11. People v. Magdueño, G.R. No. L-68699, 22
he shot PC Constable Canela near the cemetery, 14 so September 1986
that there was no lapse of time during which he could Facts: On October 15, 1980, a few minutes past 8:00
have deliberately planned the killing of the said PC o'clock in the morning, as soon as the late Fiscal
Constable and meditated on the consequences of his Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat
act. inside his jeep parked near his house at the corner
III. Contempt or insult to public authorities Roxas and D. Mendoza Streets, Puerto Princesa City, all
of a sudden, two successive gunshots burst into the air,
The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were as the gunman coming from his left side aimed and
committed in contempt of or with insult to the public poured said shots into his body, inflicting two fatal
authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera wounds (Exhibit N) that instantaneously caused his
and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against death, The autopsy report of Dr. Rufino P. Ynzon, Puerto
whom the crime were committed. Princesa City Health Officer, described the wounds as
follows:
Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not
persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in 1. Wound, gunshot, (entrance), 0.7 cm. in diameter,
authority. 15 surrounded by contusion collar, 0.3 cm. in width almost
evenly distributed around the gunshot wound, located at
IV. Uninhabited place
the lateral aspect, neck, left, lower portion, directed
The lower court also found that the killing of PC medially, slightly anteriorly, and upwards penetrating the
Constable Canela was committed in an uninhabited subcutaneous tissues and muscles, involving the left
place. It has not been shown, however, that the offense lateral portion of the esophagus, then the right lateral
was committed in an isolated place, far from human portion of the thyroid bone, the right common Carotid
habitation. Artery, the right jugular vein, and piercing the sterno-
cleido Mastoid Muscle, then making a wound (exit), 1.3
In order that the aggravating circumstance of the cm. located at the lateral aspect, neck, right, about 1 1/2
commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be inches below the angle of the mandible.
considered, it is necessary that the place of occurrence
be where there are no houses at all, a considerable 2. Wound, gunshot, (entrance), 0.7 cm. in diameter,
distance from the village or town, or where the houses surrounded by Contusion Collar, 0.3 cm. in width almost
are a great distance apart. 16 evenly distributed around the gunshot wound, located at
the lumbar region, left about 2 inches posteriorly from
Here, PC Sgt. Saway merely declared that the place the Mid-axillary line directed medially, slight anteriorly
where PC Constable Canela was shot was about 700 and slightly upwards penetrating the sub-cutaneous
meters away from the Municipal Building of Bulalacao, tissues and muscles, then to the abdominal cavity and
Oriental Mindoro, 17 which does not satisfy the involving the upper portion of the descending colon, and
requirement. Besides, the record does not show that the the two loops of small intestines, then piercing the right
place was intentionally sought by the accused to abdominal muscles, making a wound, (exit), 1.5 cm.
facilitate the commission of the crime. The accused was located at the lumbar region, right, about 1 1/2 inches
trying to evade his pursuers, PC Constable Canela anterior to the mid-axillary line, right.
among them, and their encounter was purely by chance.
The lower court, therefore, erred in finding that the crime Three witnesses positively identified the assailant as
was committed in an uninhabited place. accused Hermogenes Magdueño: (1) Elena Adion Lim,
while sitted (sic) at the gate of her fence, about 20 to 30
V. Abuse of superior strength meters away from the house of Fiscal Dilig, saw the
gunman coming from where she heard two successive
Finally, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
shots when he passed by her house, bringing a short
superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no
gun in his right hand and a clutch bag while hurriedly
direct evidence that the accused employed superior
proceeding towards Liwanag Street. On October 30,
strength in the killing of Pat. Gelera. The accused was
1980, she identified accused Magdueno as the man she
then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat. Gelera had
saw that early morning of October 15, 1980; (2) Ernesto
his service pistol with him. With respect to PC Constable
Mari Y Gonzales, a security guard of the Malaria
155
 AB
Eradication Service, this City, while on board a tricycle, The evidence showing that the appellant was a contract
passing in front of the house of Fiscal Dilig, on his way or hired killer especially contacted in Manila to do a job
home, likewise heard the two gunshots coming from the in Puerto Princesa is strengthened by testimony.
direction of Fiscal Dilig's house, prompting him to order
the driver to stop. He described the gunman as wearing Magdueño himself testified that he was formerly an
a white polo shirt, blue pants and a hat, still holding the inmate of Muntinglupa who was later transferred to Sta.
gun pointed at Fiscal Dilig. When the gunman turned to Lucia Sub-Colony and released in 1973. He stated that
his left side, Mari saw a scar on his left temple below his after his release, he lived with relatives in Divisoria and
left eyebrow. The man was still holding the gun in his worked with an aunt as sidewalk vendor. He explained
right hand while walking in a limping manner towards his presence in Palawan on the day of the killing by
Mendoza Street. On the witness chamber, he positively claiming that sometime in 1979 Leonardo Senas
identified accused Hermogenes Magdueno as the accidentally passed by their place in Tabora and
gunman; (3) Cynthia Canto a taxi dancer, residing at suggested that the appellant bring assorted merchandize
Jose Abad Santos, this City, while in front of the store of to Aborlan, Palawan where Senas resides. He, therefore,
Aling Charing near the house of Fiscal Dilig, waiting for a left for Palawan on board the M/V Leon on September
tricycle, saw the gunman standing by for a quite time, 28, 1980 (or shortly before the killing) and visited
then went nearer Fiscal Dilig who was then sitted (sic) on Mauricio de Leon at Quito, Puerto Princesa, saw head-
the driver's seat of his jeep and fired two successive nurse Mrs. Fernandez at Sta. Lucia, spent a night with a
shots to the latter, exiting towards Mendoza Street. She Mr. Obid at the Inagawan Sub-Colony and proceeded to
could not be mistaken that accused Hermogenes Aborlan, Palawan. He claims that at the time of the
Magdueno was the gunman and when she came face to shooting, he was in the house of Senas in Aborlan and
face with him at the invitation of the police in Plaridel, learned only from the radio about the killing of Fiscal
Aborlan, Palawan, she readily Identified Magdueño as Dilig.
the killer. One of the prosecution witnesses, Andres Factors,
Magdueño also executed an extra-judicial confession testified that he was formerly an inmate in Muntinglupa
wherein he admitted that he killed Fiscal Dilig for a price since October 26, 1955 and that while serving a
or reward and implicated Leonardo Senas and Mauricio sentence for triple death penalty, he met Magdueno, a
de Leon to the commission of the crime. However, both leader of the Sputnik Gang, also on death row.
Senas and de Leon were later dropped from the Magdueño was nicknamed "Mande" and served as an
amended information for lack of a prima facie case attendant in the prison hospital Factors stated that
against them. Magdueño was known as a TIRADOR or killer while in
prison He further testified that while he was in Sta. Lucia
All the other accused were acquitted for insufficiency of Sub-Colony in 1980, he saw Magdueño on October 12
evidence. or 13 at the gate of Palawan Apitong. The reason given
by the appellant for his being there was that he was in
Issue: the business of bangus fry.
Ruling: We have carefully examined the records and considering
I. Treachery the testimony of the three eyewitnesses to the shooting,
their positive and categorical Identification of the
Treachery in the commission of the crime is clearly appellant as the assailant, the corroborative evidence on
established by the record. the circumstances of the killing, and the more than
coincidental presence of Magdueño in Palawan when he
The appellant fired two successive shots at the
should have been in Manila, we see no error in the lower
defenseless Fiscal Dilig while the latter was still seated
court's finding that the appellant committed the crime of
in his jeep, hitting him at the neck and lumbar region.
murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation
According to Dr. Rufino P. Ynzon, who performed the
and aggravated by price and reward.
autopsy, on the victim; both wounds were fatal and that
"death will definitely occur." Immediately after the III. Recidivism
shooting, the appellant fled still holding his firearm.
Magdueño, in effect, also admitted that he was a
The manner of the execution was such that the appellant recidivist at the time of his trial.
deliberately and consciously adopted means and ways
of committing the crime and insured its execution without However, recidivism was not alleged in the information
risk to himself arising from any defense Fiscal Dilig might and makes no difference in the determination of the
make. The two conditions necessary for treachery to penalty in this case.
exist are present. (People v. Macariola, 120 SCRA 92; IV. Insult to public authority
People v. Rhoda, 122 SCRA 909; People v. Mahusay,
138 SCRA 452; and People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA However, the aggravating circumstance of commission
548). of a crime with insult to public authority does not seem to
be borne by the records.
The fact that the appellant called out, "Fiscal" before
shooting the victim does not negate the presence of For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it
treachery in the commission of the crime. Since the must not only be shown that the crime was not
appellant was a hired killer, he wanted to insure that he committed in the presence of the public authority but
was shooting the correct person. When Dilig turned his also that the crime was not committed against the public
face to find out who was calling him, the appellant fired authority himself.
immediately rendering no opportunity for Dilig to defend
himself. In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public authority
involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower
The attendant circumstance of treachery qualifies the court, erred in including commission of the crime with
crime to murder. The first assigned error is without merit. insult to public authority as an aggravating circumstance.

II. Price/reward and evident premeditation Penalty: Considering the presence of an aggravating
circumstance and the absence of any mitigating
circumstance attending the offense, the lower court
156
 AB
imposed the proper penalty on the appellant. The crime their teacher. Renato fired a second time, this time
in this case is a particularly heinous one. The appellant hitting the blackboard in front of the class. Francis and
is shown by the records as a heartless contract killer. the other students rushed back towards the rear of the
Upon being paid for a job, he had no compunctions room. Renato walked towards the center of the
about traveling all the way to Palawan from Manila, classroom and fired a third time at Francis, hitting the
stalking and liquidating an unwary victim whose only concrete wall of the classroom. Francis and a number of
fault was to perform his duties faithfully. his classmates rushed towards the door, the only door to
and from Room 15. Renato proceeded to the teacher, s
12. People v. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-89, 26 platform nearest the door and for the fourth time fired at
February 1990. Francis as the latter was rushing towards the door. This
Facts: Appellant Renato Tac-an, then eighteen (18) time, Francis was hit on the head and he fell on the back
years and seven (7) months of age, and the deceased of Ruel and both fell to the floor. Ruel was pulled out of
Francis Ernest Escano III, fifteen (15) years old, were the room by a friend; Francis remained sprawled on the
classmates in the third year of high school of the Divine floor bleeding profusely. 7
Word College in Tagbilaran City. They were close Renato then went out of Room 15, and paced between
friends, being not only classmates but also members of Rooms 14 and 15. A teacher, Mr. Pablo Baluma,
the same gang, the Bronx gang. Renato had been to the apparently unaware that it was Renato who had gunned
house where Francis and his parents lived, on one or down Francis, approached Renato and asked him to
two occasions. On those occasions, Francis' mother help Francis as the latter was still alive inside the room.
noticed that Renato had a handgun with him. Francis Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, closed the door
was then advised by his mother to distance himself from behind him, saying: "So, he is still alive. Where is his
Renato. 4 chest?" Standing over Francis sprawled face down on
Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang. The relationship the classroom floor, Renato aimed at the chest of
between Renato and Francis turned sour. Sometime in Francis and fired once more. The bullet entered Francis'
September 1984, Renato and Francis quarrelled with back below the right shoulder, and exited on his front
each other, on which occasion Francis bodily lifted chest just above the right nipple. 8
Arnold Romelde from the ground. Arnold was friend and Renato then left with two (2) remaining students and
companion to Renato. The quarrel resulted in Renato locked Francis alone inside Room 15. Renato proceeded
and Francis being brought to the high school principal's to the ground floor and entered the faculty room. There,
office. The strained relationship between the two (2) he found some teachers and students and ordered them
erstwhile friends was aggravated in late November 1984 to lock the door and close the windows, in effect holding
when Francis teamed that Renato, together with other them as hostages. He also reloaded his gun with five (5)
members of the Bronx gang, was looking for him, bullets. After some time, a team of Philippine
apparently with the intention of beating him up. Further Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Larino Lazo arrived
deterioration of their relationship occurred sometime in and surrounded the faculty room. With a hand-held
the first week of December 1984, when graffiti appeared public address device, Capt. Lazo called upon Renato to
on the wall of the third year high school classroom and surrender himself Renato did not respond to this call.
on the armrest of a chair in that classroom, deprecating Renato's brother approached Capt. Lazo and
the Bronx gang and describing Renato as "bayot" volunteered to persuade his brother to give up. Renato's
(homosexual) 5 Renato attributed the graffiti to Francis. father who, by this time had also arrived, pleaded with
At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 14 December Renato to surrender himself Renato then turned over his
1984, Renato entered Room 15 of the high school gun to his brother through an opening in the balustrade
building to attend his English III class. Renato placed his of the faculty room. Capt. Lazo took the gun from
scrapbook prepared for their Mathematics class on his Renato's brother, went to the door of the faculty room,
chair, and approached the teacher, Mrs. Liliosa Baluma, entered and placed Renato under arrest. 9
to raise a question. Upon returning to his chair, he found Meantime, as soon as Renato left Room 15, some
Francis sitting there, on the scrapbook. Renato was teachers and students came to rescue Francis but could
angered by what he saw and promptly kicked the chair not open the door which Renato had locked behind him.
on which Francis was seated. Francis, however, One of the students entered the room by climbing up the
explained that he had not intentionally sat down on second floor on the outside and through the window and
Renato's scrapbook. A fistfight would have ensued but opened the door from the inside. The teachers and
some classmates and two (2) teachers, Mrs. Baluma and students brought Francis down to the ground floor from
Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, intervened and prevented them whence the PC soldiers rushed him to the Celestino
from assaulting each other. After the two (2) had quieted Gallares Memorial Hospital. 10 Francis died before
down and apparently shaken hands at the instance of reaching the hospital.
Mrs. Baluma, the latter resumed her English III class.
Francis sat on the last row to the extreme right of the Capt. Lazo brought Renato to the PC Headquarters at
teacher while Renato was seated on the same last row Camp Dagohoy, Tagbilaran City. The officer deposited
at the extreme left of the teacher. While the English III the revolver recovered from Renato which was an
class was still going on, Renato slipped out of the Airweight Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver, with
classroom and went home to get a gun. He was back at Serial No. 359323, as well as the five (5) live bullets
the classroom approximately fifteen (15) minutes later. 6 removed from the said revolver, and the five (5) empty
cartridges which Renato had turned over to him. Ballistic
The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas examination conducted by Supervising Ballistician,
scheduled for 3:00 p.m. had just started in Room 15 Artemio Panganiban, National Bureau of Investigation,
when Renato suddenly burst into the room, shut the door Cebu, showed that the empty cartridge cases had been
and with both hands raised, holding a revolver, shouted fired from the revolver recovered from Renato. 11
"Where is Francis?" Upon sighting Francis seated
behind and to the light of student Ruel Ungab, Renato Issue:
fired at Francis, hitting a notebook, a geometry book and
the armrest of Ruel's chair. Francis and Ruel jumped up Ruling:
and with several of their classmates rushed forward I. Treachery
towards the teacher's platform to seek protection from
157
 AB
There was no treachery. We must discard evident premeditation as an
aggravating circumstance.
 Appellant contends that there was no treachery
present because before any shot was fired, Renato Here, it is the urging of the appellant that the requisites
had shouted "where is Francis?" Appellant in effect of evident premeditation had not been sufficiently shown.
suggests his opening statement was a warning to In order that evident premeditation may be taken into
Francis and that the first three (3) shots he had fired account, there must be proof of (a) the time when the
at Francis were merely warning shots. Moreover, offender formed his intent to commit the crime; (b) an
building upon his own testimony about the alleged action manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to
threat that Francis had uttered before he (Renato) his determination to commit the crime; and (c) of the
left his English III class to go home and get a gun, passage of a sufficient interval of time between the
appellant argues that Francis must have anticipated determination of the offender to commit the crime and
his return and thus had sufficient time to prepare for the actual execution thereof, to allow him to reflect upon
the coming of the appellant. the consequences of his act.

Reasons on finding re: treachery: The defense pointed out that barely fifteen (15) minutes
had elapsed from the time Renato left his English III
1. Room 15 of the Divine Word College High School class and the time he returned with a gun. While there
Department Tagbilaran City, is situated in the second was testimony to the fact that before that fatal day of 14
floor of the building. It is a corner room and it has only December 1984, anger and resentment had welled up
one (1) door which is the only means of entry and exit; between Francis and Renato, there was no evidence
2. At the time of the attack, the deceased was seated on adequately showing when Renato had formed the
his chair inside his classroom and was writing on the intention and determination to take the life of Francis.
armrest of his chair and also talking to Ruel Ungab and III. Under the influence of a dangerous drug
while their teacher, Mr. Damaso Pasilbas was checking
the attendance. The deceased was not aware of any The Court considers that the evidence presented on this
impending assault neither did he have any means to point was simply inadequate to support the ruling of the
defend himself; trial court that Renato had shot and killed Francis while
under the influence of a prohibited drug.
3. The accused used an airweight Smith & Wesson .38
caliber revolver in shooting to death the defenseless and The above circumstances pointed to by the trial court
helpless Francis Ernest Escaño; may be indicative of passionate anger on the part of
Renato; we do not believe that they necessarily show
4. The attack was so sudden and so unexpected. the that Renato had smoked marijuana before entering his
accused consciously conceived that mode of attack; English III class. In the absence of competent medical or
5. The accused fired at Francis again and again and did other direct evidence of ingestion of a dangerous drug,
not give him a chance to defend himself. After the courts may be wary and critical of indirect evidence,
deceased was hit on the head and fell to the floor while considering the severe consequences for the accused of
he was already sprawled and completely defenseless a finding that he had acted while under the influence of a
the accused fired at him again and the deceased was hit prohibited drug.
on the chest; IV. In contempt of or with insult to the public
6. The deceased was not armed. He was totally authorities
defenseless. He was absolutely not aware of any coming We believe the trial court erred in so finding the
attack. 21 presence of a generic aggravating circumstance.
The Court also pointed out that Renato must have Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
known that Francis while inside Room 15 had no means Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 299,
of escape there being only one (1) door and Room 15 provides as follows:
being on the second floor of the building. Renato in
effect blocked the only exit open to Francis as he stood Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in
on the teacher's platform closest to the door and fired as authority. — Who shall be deemed as such. — In
Francis and Ruel sought to dash through the door. applying the provisions of the preceding and other
Renato's question "where is Francis?" cannot articles of this Code, any person directly vested with
reasonably be regarded as an effort to warn Francis for jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
he shot at Francis the instant he sighted the latter, some court or government corporation, board, or
seated and talking to Ruel Ungab. That Renato fired commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
three (3) shots before hitting Francis with the fourth shot, barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be
can only be ascribed to the indifferent markmanship of deemed a person in authority.
Renato and to the fact that Francis and the other
A person who by direct provision of law or by election or
students were scurrying from one part of the room to the
by appointment by competent authority, is charged with
other in an effort to evade the shots fired by Renato. The
the maintenance of public order and the protection and
cumulative effect of the circumstances underscored by
security of life and property, such as a barrio
the trial court was that the attack upon Francis had been
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and
carried out in a manner which disabled Francis from
any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority,
defending himself or retaliating against Renato. Finally,
shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
the circumstance that Renato, having been informed that
Francis was still alive, re-entered Room 15 and fired In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this
again at Francis who lay on the floor and bathed with his Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with
own blood, manifested Renato's conscious choice of the supervision of public or duly recognized private
means of execution which directly and especially schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the
ensured the death of his victim without risk to himself. actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
II. Evident premeditation
in authority.

158
 AB
Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will while she was gathering camotes. She shouted for help,
show that while a teacher or professor of a public or saying: "Anita (Aning), help me because I am being
recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in embraced". Reacting to Remegia's cry for help, Anita,
authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only with a bolo, struck Francisco on the head and hands.
for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault Francisco released Remegia and fled. He suffered some
upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and injuries in consequence of those blows. The injuries
disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of were treated at the puericulture center by the sanitary
such person) of the Revised Penal Code. In marked inspector (Exh. D and D-1).
contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not
identify specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for The two girls left the camote farm and hastened to the
the application of which any person "directly vested with house of Quintin Tadia (Tadya), their grandfather, in Sitio
jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in authority." Ilawod. They informed him that Francisco Diaz had
Because a penal statute is not to be given a longer reach embraced and abused Remegia. Remegia had been
and broader scope than is called for by the ordinary brought up by her grandfather. She was then staying
meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute, to with him. Anita was living with her parents in a house
the disadvantage of an accused, we do not believe that a about six brazas from Tadia's house.
teacher or professor of a public or recognized private Tadia immediately reported the incident to the barrio
school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the lieutenant. He gave Tadia a note for the municipal
meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised authorities so that the proper complaint could be filed
Penal Code, 31 the provision the trial court applied in the against Francisco Diaz.
case at bar.
At around seven o'clock in the morning of the following
V. Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary day, September 5th, Tadia, accompanied by his teenage
surrender granddaughters, Remegia and Anita, was on his way to
He was not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of the poblacion of Sta. Margarita to file complaint. He was
voluntary surrender. unarmed. He was carrying on his back a catopis, an
oblong basket about four by two "palms' length"
Firstly, Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, 27 by containing provisions of boiled camotes. He was walking
handing over the weapon through the balustrade of the ahead, followed by Remegia and Anita one braza behind
faculty room. Secondly, he surrendered the gun to his him.
brother, who was not in any case a person in authority
nor an agent of a person in authority. 28 Thirdly, Renato While they were ascending the hill or cliff ( pangpang in
did not surrender himself he was arrested by Capt. Lazo. Waray dialect) in Sitio Ilawod, Francisco Diaz and his
The fact that he did not resist arrest, did not constitute younger brother Gerardo (Adong), twenty-one years old,
voluntary surrender. 29 Finally, if it be assumed that appeared on the crest of the hill. Both were wearing
Renato had surrendered himself, such surrender cannot denim pants and white shirts. Gerardo was armed with a
be regarded as voluntary and spontaneous. Renato was locally made shotgun called bardog (Exh. C), about fifty
holed up in the faculty room, in effect holding some inches long. He immediately fired sidewise at Tadia
teachers and students as hostages. The faculty room while about four meters from the latter, hitting him in the
was surrounded by Philippine Constabulary soldiers and neck. The shot felled Tadia. He rolled down the lower
there was no escape open to him. part of the cliff near the Alao Creek and lay there flat on
his back with his catopis.
Penalty: In Criminal Case No. 4012 — (a) the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and Then, the brothers jumped to the lower part of the cliff.
of having acted with contempt of or insult to the public Gerardo told his brother: "Go ahead, Francisco, stab that
authorities shall be DELETED and not taken into fellow". Francisco placed his foot on the prostrate body
account; and (b) the special aggravating circumstances of Quintin Tadia, bent over him and repeatedly stabbed
of acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs him in different parts of his body. Francisco was armed
and with the use of an unlicensed firearm shall similarly with a bolo commonly called utak which is used in
be DELETED and not taken into account. There being gathering firewood.
no generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances After witnessing the assault, Remegia Carasos ran in the
present, the appellant shall suffer the penalty of direction of her house. Anita Pacairo hid herself among
reclusion perpetua. the bushes or tall grasses "sitting, crouching and
The two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua shall be peeping" and "seeing all that was happening" (78 tsn.).
served successively in accordance with the provisions of Tadia died on the spot where he fell. Gerardo placed his
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. As so modified, bardog on a moss-covered stone called palanas about
the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. three brazas from Tadia's body. Remegia informed her
Costs against appellant. father and the inhabitants of the barrio about the
ambuscade and the killing of her grandfather. Gerardo
13. People v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-24002, 21 January Diaz went home while Francisco surrendered to the
1974. authorities.

Facts: At about two o'clock in the afternoon of On September 6, 1963 Gerardo Diaz was arrested in
September 4, 1963 Remegia Carasos, a fourteen-year Barrio Perito by Policemen Venancio Melka and
old girl, and her first cousin, Anita Pacaira (Pakaira), Simplicio Calibo. He did not resist arrest. He was in good
eleven years old, were gathering camotes in a farm physical condition. On September 9, 1963, or four days
located at a place fittingly called Sitio Camotian, Barrio after the killing, Remegia and Anita executed before the
Perito, municipality of Sta. Margarita, Western Samar. municipal judge sworn statements wherein they
recounted the antecedents and details of the killing
In that peaceful, rustic scene, there suddenly appeared (pages 3 to 8 of the Record). On that same date the
Francisco Diaz (Ansing or Francing), a twenty-four year chief of police filed in the municipal court a complaint for
old unmarried farmer of that place, whom Remegia and murder against the Diaz brothers.
Anita had known for many years. Without any
preliminaries, he embraced Remegia from behind and Issue:
against her will and held her breast. He knelt behind her
159
 AB
Ruling: his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
(vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) had he
I. Treachery desired to hearken to its warnings (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil.
The crime committed by the appellants is murder 530, 547).
qualified by treachery as alleged in the information. However, with respect to Gerardo Diaz, premeditacion
There was treachery (alevosia) because the brothers conocida should not be appreciated. Obviously, he
made a deliberate surprise or unexpected assault on participated in the assault in order to help his elder
Tadia. brother who exercised some moral ascendancy over him
They literally ambushed him. They waited for him on the and who was the one directly affected by the embracing
cliff, a high ground which rendered it difficult for him to incident which preceded the killing (People vs. Talok, 65
flee or maneuver in his defense. Tadia was shot Phil. 696, 707; Art. 62, Revised Penal Code).s
sidewise while he was ascending the hill or cliff 14. People v. Arizobal
burdened by his catopis or food basket. That was
another circumstance which handicapped him in Facts: On 24 March 1994 she together with her husband
resisting the assault. The initial attack was successful. Laurencio Gimenez and a grandchild were sound asleep
Tadia fell and rolled down the cliff and landed near the in their house in Tuybo, Cataingan, Masbate. At around
creek below. In that helpless state, he was ruthlessly 9:30 in the evening, Laurencio roused her from sleep
stabbed by Francisco Diaz. and told her to open the door because there were
persons outside the house. Since it was pitch-dark she lit
The appellants resorted to means of execution which a kerosene lamp and stood up to open the door. She
directly and specially insured the killing without any risk was suddenly confronted by three (3) armed men
to themselves arising from any defense which the victim pointing their guns at her. She recognized two (2) of
could have made. Actually, he was not able to make any them as Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes but failed to
defense, unarmed and attacked unaware as he was. The recognize the third person who was wearing a maskara.
treacherous mode of attack is incontrovertible (Par. 16, She readily identified Clarito because she used to pass
Art. 14 and Art. 248, Revised Penal Code). by his house in San Rafael while Erly was also a familiar
II. Abuse of superiority face as he was a regular habitue of the flea market.

The attack was also attended with abuse of superiority. According to Clementina, Clarito asked her husband,
"Tay, where is your gun." But she promptly interjected,
Two armed young men unexpectedly assaulted an "We have no gun, not even a bolo. If you want, you can
unarmed sexagenarian. However, abuse of superior look around for it."4 While the man in maskara stood
strength is merged with treachery. guard at the door, Clarito and Lignes barged into the
master's bedroom and forcibly opened the aparador. The
III. Insult/disregard of age
terrified couple could not raise a finger in protest but had
The circumstance of old age cannot be considered to leave their fate to the whims of their assailants. The
aggravating. intruders ransacked their cabinet and scattered
everything on the floor until they found ₱8,000.00 among
There was no evidence that the accused deliberately sheets of paper. Before leaving with their loot they
intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. That ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's house
circumstance may be absorbed in treachery (People vs. because "we have something to talk about."5 Against his
Gervacio, L-21565, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 960; will, Laurencio went with them. Clementina recalled that
People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548; People vs. Limaco, shortly after the group left she heard a volley of shots.
88 Phil. 35, 44). Her grandchild, as if sensing what befell her grandfather,
could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!"
IV. Degree of instruction
Erlinda Gimenez, wife of Jimmy Gimenez, narrated that
The trial court did not make any finding as to the degree
on 24 March 1994, after she and her son had taken
of instruction of the offenders.
supper, her husband Jimmy with one Francisco Gimenez
V. Evident premeditation arrived. Jimmy informed Erlinda that they had already
bought a carabao. After he handed her the certificate of
Premeditation, which was alleged in the information as a large cattle, and while he was in the process of skinning
qualifying circumstance, should be considered only as a chicken for their supper, three (3) men suddenly
generic aggravating circumstance with respect to appeared and ordered them to lie face down. One of
Francisco Diaz since treachery has already been used to them pushed her to the ground while the others tied
qualify the killing as murder. In his case, it is offset by the Francisco and Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the armalite rifle. She noticed one of them wearing a mask,
authorities. another a hat, and still another, a bonnet.6
It should be recalled that the embracing incident was Realizing the utter helplessness of their victims, the
reported by Tadia to the barrio lieutenant after two robbers took the liberty of consuming the food and
o'clock in the afternoon of September 4, 1963. That cigarettes Erlinda was selling in her sari-sari store.
functionary advised Tadia to file a complaint with the Finding no softdrinks to complete their snack, two (2) of
authorities in the town of Sta. Margarita. It may the intruders ordered Erlinda to buy coke for them at the
reasonably be assumed that Francisco Diaz became neighboring store. But they warned her not to make any
aware that same afternoon that Tadia, who was his noise, much less alert the vendor. When they returned to
neighbor, was going to the poblacion to lodge a the house of Jimmy, the robbers proceeded to ransack
complaint against him. That would explain why early in the household in search for valuables. They took around
the morning of the next day, September 5th, at about ₱1,000.00 from her sari-sari store and told them to
seven o'clock, he and his brother were already in the hill produce ₱100,000.00 in exchange for Jimmy's life. Since
or cliff waiting for Tadia who was on his way to town. the couple could not produce such a big amount in so
short a time, Erlinda offered to give their certificate of
Thus, there was a sufficient interval of time, more than
large cattle. The culprits however would not fall for the
one-half day, within which appellant Francisco Diaz had
ruse and threw the document back to her. Three (3)
full opportunity for meditation and reflection and to allow
160
 AB
masked men then dragged Jimmy outside the house and A: They have (sic) both of them were carrying short
together with Laurencio brought them some fifty (50) firearms.20
meters away while leaving behind Clarito Arizobal and
Erly Lignes to guard Francisco and Erlinda's son. IV. Nighttime
Moments later she heard a burst of gunfire which We likewise hold that the aggravating circumstance of
reverberated through the stillness of the night. nighttime did not attend the commission of the crime.
When the masked men returned to Jimmy's house, one The fact that the offense was committed at 9:30 in the
of them informed Erlinda that her husband and father-in- evening does not suffice to sustain nocturnidad for, by
law had been killed for trying to escape. Upon hearing itself, nighttime is not an aggavating circumstance. To be
this, Erlinda, as if the heavens had fallen on her, slowly properly so considered, it must be shown that
lost consciousness. nocturnidad was deliberately and intentionally sought by
Issue: accused-appellants to help them realize their evil
intentions.
Ruling:
Nowhere can we infer from the records that the
I. Dwelling malefactors sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the
accomplishment of their devious design. On the contrary,
The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an the locus criminis was well lighted and nighttime was
aggravating circumstance. merely an incidental element to the whole drama.
Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes Nor can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be
which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, appreciated, for the prosecution failed to demonstrate (a)
such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited that the malefactor particularly sought or took advantage
place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors of the darkness to commit the offense, or (b) that
thereof can commit the heinous crime without nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime. In any
transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile event, the prosecution presented no evidence to
In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an establish the fact that nocturnidad attended the killing.
impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims' Nighttime cannot be considered if it is shown that the
abode when they forced their way in, looted their place was adequately lighted. In this case, it was
houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into established that the place was sufficiently illuminated by
submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their a kerosene lamp.
hands before dragging them out of the house to be 15. People v. Daniel
killed.
Facts: The offended party in this case is Margarita
II. Treachery Paleng who was born on November 20, 1952). She is a
Treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court. native of Balangabang Tublay, Mountain Province. At the
time of the incident in question on September 20, 1965,
The accused stand charged with, tried and convicted of complainant was temporarily boarding at a house
robbery with homicide. This special complex crime is located at Pinsao Guisad Baguio City, as she was then a
primarily classified in this jurisdiction as a crime against first-year high school student at the Baguio Eastern High
property, and not against persons, homicide being School.
merely an incident of robbery with the latter being the
main purpose and object of the criminals. On September 20, 1965, at about three o’clock in the
afternoon, she had just arrived in the City from Tublay in
As such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an a Dangwa bus. Because it was then raining and the bus
aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of The Revised was parked several meters away from the bus station,
Penal Code.18 This is completely a reversal of the she waited inside the bus. After about three minutes of
previous jurisprudence on the matter decided in a litany waiting, the accused came and started molesting her by
of cases before People v. Bariquit.19 inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag But she
did not allow him to hold her bag (p. 24, Id.). She called
III. Band
the attention of the bus driver and the conductor about
While it appears that at least five (5) malefactors took the actuation of the accused, but it seemed that the
part in the commission of the crime, the evidence on former were also afraid of him.
record does not disclose that "more than three" persons
Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and
were armed, and robbery in "band" means "more than
was about to close it when the accused dashed in and
three armed malefactors united in the commission of
closed the door behind him. When she entered her
robbery."
room, the accused went in. He pulled a dagger eight
Nowhere in the records can we gather that more than inches long and threatened her: "If you will talk, 1 will kill
three (3) of the robbers were armed. Hence, "band" you". Margarita was stunned into silence because of her
cannot be aggravating where no proof is adduced that at fear. Thereupon, the accused held her hair with his left
least four (4) of the five (5) perpetrators involved in this hand and forced her Lo lie down in bed.
case were armed.
Issue:
Q: You said that these 3 persons were armed, will you
Ruling:
tell this Honorable Court the kind of weapon or arms they
were bringing with them at that time? I. Dwelling
A: One person carrying a long firearm. To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is
rape with the use of a deadly weapon with the
Q: How about the other two?
aggravating circumstance of having been committed in
A: One person standing at the door carrying a long the dwelling of the offended party. Although Margarita
firearm and the two went upstairs. was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her
room constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling"
Q: Were they carrying weapons? as the term is used in Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code.
161
 AB
It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this
the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a class of robbery could be committed without the
boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.
sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be
committed in no other place than in the house of
another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited
Hence, the correct penalty for the crime committed is house.
death pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez,
as amended. sruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling)
However, for lack of the necessary number of votes, the were certainly not inherent in the crime committed,
penalty next lower in degree is to be applied. because, the crime being robbery with violence or
intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with
16. People v. Apduhan, G.R. No. L-19491, 30 August homicide) the authors thereof could have committed it
1968 without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile
of their victim." Cuello Calon opines that the commission
Facts: On or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about
of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater
7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini,
perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm.
Province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named
accused and five (5) other persons whose true names II. Nocturnity
are not yet known (they are presently known only with
their aliases of Bernabe Miano, Rudy, Angel-Angi, Nocturnity is aggravating when it is purposely and
Romeo and Tony) and who are still at large (they will be deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the
charged in separate information or informations as soon commission of the crime 19 or to prevent their being
as they are arrested and preliminary proceedings in recognized or to insure unmolested escape.
Crim. Case No. 176 completed before the Justice of the Nocturnidad must concur with the intent and design of
Peace Court), all of them armed with different unlicensed the offender to capitalize on the intrinsic impunity
firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, afforded by the darkness of night. 21 In the case at bar,
conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with the affidavit (exh. I-1) of the accused Apduhan shows
intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and that he and his co-malefactors took advantage of the
feloniously enter, by means of violence, the dwelling nighttime in the perpetration of the offense as they
house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia waited until it was dark before they came out of their
Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their hiding place to consummate their criminal designs.
children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda
de Miano; and, once inside the said dwelling house, the III. Art. 295 – 296 of the Revised Penal Code
above-named accused with their five (5) other
companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano Article 295 provides, inter alia, that when the offenses
and another person by the name of Norberto Aton, who described in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of art. 294 are
happened to be also in the said dwelling house, thereby committed by a band, the proper penalties must be
inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries imposed in the maximum periods. The circumstance of
which caused their death; and thereafter the same band is therefore qualifying only in robbery punished by
accused and their five (5) other companions, did take subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294. Consequently, art.
and carry way from said dwelling house cash money 295 is inapplicable to robbery with homicide, rape,
amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two Pesos intentional mutilation, and lesiones graves resulting in
(P322.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to Honorato insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness. If the
Miano and Geronimo Miano, to the damage and foregoing classes of robbery which are described in art.
prejudice of the said Honorato Miano and the heirs of the 294(1) and (2) are perpetrated by a band, they would not
deceased Geronimo Miano in the sum of Three Hundred be punishable under art. 295, but then cuadrilla would be
Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00) with respect to the amount a generic aggravating under Art. 14 of the Code.1
robbed, and also to the damage and prejudice of the Hence, with the present wording of art. 2952 there is no
heirs of deceased Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton crime as "robbery with homicide in band." If robbery with
by reason of the death of these two persons. homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense
would still be denominated as "robbery with homicide"
Issue: under art. 294(1), but the element of band, as stated
above, would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating
I. Whether or not the lower court erred in the circumstance.
appreciation of the use of unlicensed firearm
as a special aggravating circumstance (art. Article 296, as quoted above, defines "band", creates the
296) in fixing the appropriate penalty for special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
robbery with homicide (Art, 294 [1]) firearm, and provides the criminal liability incurred by the
committed by a band with the use of members of the band. The ascertainment of the definite
unlicensed firearms, and the interplay and function and range of applicability of this article in
counter-balancing of the attendant mitigating relation to articles 294 and 295 is essential in the
and aggravating circumstances, would disposition of the case at bar.
determine the severity of the penalty
imposable. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appears to
have accorded validity to the Provincial Fiscal's
Ruling: contention that in robbery with homicide committed by a
band, the use of unlicensed firearm must be appreciated
Penalty: as a special aggravating circumstance pursuant to art.
I. Dwelling 296. Thus convinced, the trial judge stressed in his
decision that "under the express mandate of the law, we
The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery cannot escape the arduous task of imposing the death
with violence or intimidation of persons, 14 like the penalty." Subscribing to the said position, the Solicitor
offense at bar. General adds that the "penalty for robbery under the
circumstances mentioned in Articles 294, paragraph 1,
162
 AB
and 296 of the Code is the maximum of reclusion The prosecution apparently did not concede the actual
perpetua to death, or the supreme penalty of death. This intoxication of the accused. We are of the firm conviction
is mandatory." . that, under the environmental circumstances, the
defense was not relieved of its burden to prove the
On the other hand, Atty. Alberto M. Meer, the accused's accused's actual state of intoxication.
counsel de oficio in the present review, contends that the
use of unlicensed firearm, if ever appreciated in the case The last paragraph of Art. 15 of the Code provides:
at bar, must be considered a generic aggravating factor
which "may be off-set by the existence of mitigating "The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
circumstances so that the penalty to be imposed should consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the
be the penalty of reclusion perpetua." . offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication,
if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
Both the foregoing contentions are untenable. commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual
or intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating
After a perceptive analysis of the provisions of art. 296, circumstance. (Emphasis supplied).
we reach the considered opinion that the said article is
exclusively linked and singularly applicable to the Under the foregoing provision, intoxication is mitigating
immediately antecedent provision of art. 295 on robbery when it is not habitual or intentional, that is, not
in band, as the latter article, in turn, is explicitly limited in subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. However, to
scope to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294. be mitigating the accused's state of intoxication must be
Consequently, although the use of unlicensed firearm is proved. 6 Once intoxication is established by satisfactory
a special aggravating circumstance under art. 296, as evidence, 7 then in the absence of proof to the contrary"
amended by Rep. Act 12, 3 it cannot be appreciated as it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional. 8 .
such in relation to robbery with homicide, described and
penalized under paragraph 1 of art. 294. In People vs. Noble 9 the defendant testified that before
the murder he took a bottle of wine and drank little by
As previously stated, art. 295 provides that if any of the little until he got drunk. The policeman who arrested the
classes of robbery described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 accused testified that the latter smelled wine and
of art. 294 is committed by a band, the offender shall be vomited. The Court held that the evidence presented
punished by the maximum period of the proper penalty. was not satisfactory to warrant a mitigation of the
Correspondingly, the immediately following provisions of penalty. Intoxication was likewise not competently
art. 296 define the term "band", prescribe the collective proved in a case 10 where the only evidence was that
liability of the members of the band, and state that "when the defendant had a gallon of tuba with him at the time
any of the arms used in the commission of the offense he committed the crime.
be in unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon
all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the In the case at bar the accused merely alleged that when
corresponding penalty provided by law." Viewed from the he committed the offense charged he was intoxicated
contextual relation of articles 295 and 296, the word although he was "not used to be drunk," 11This self-
"offense" mentioned in the above-quoted portion of the serving statement stands uncorroborated. Obviously, it is
latter article logically means the crime of robbery devoid of any probative value.
committed by a band, as the phrase "all the malefactors" V. Mitigating circumstance: Plea of guilty
indubitably refers to the members of the band and the
phrase "the corresponding penalty provided by law" The accused has in his favor only one mitigating
relates to the offenses of robbery described in the last circumstance: plea of guilty.
three subdivisions of art. 294 which are all encompassed
While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it at the
within the ambit of art. 295. Evidently, therefore, art. 296
same time constitutes an admission of all the material
in its entirety is designed to amplify and modify the
facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating
provision on robbery in band which is nowhere to be
circumstances therein recited. 12 The four aggravating
found but in art. 295 in relation to subdivisions 3, 4, and
circumstances are (1) band; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime;
5 of art. 294. Verily, in order that the aforesaid special
and (4) abuse of superior strength. The circumstance of
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm
abuse of superiority was, however, withdrawn by the
may be appreciated to justify the imposition of the
prosecution on the ground that since the offense of
maximum period of the proper penalty it is a condition
robbery with homicide was committed by a band, the
sine qua non that the offense charged be robbery
element of cuadrilla necessarily absorbs the
committed by a band within the contemplation of art.
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
295. To reiterate, since art. 295, does not apply to
subdivision 1 and 2 of art. 294, then the special 17. People v. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304-05, 28
aggravating factor in question, which is solely applicable June 1983
to robbery in band under art. 295, cannot be considered
in fixing the penalty imposable for robbery with homicide Facts: In the morning of October 3, 1977, Julian
under art. 294(1), even if the said crime was committed Ortillano, Martin Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and
by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms. Anacleto Simon, trainees/draftees of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and assigned to the 3rd Infantry
The legislative intent of making art. 296 corollary to art. Battalion of the Philippine Army, were passengers of a
295 with respect to robbery in band was unmistakably bus bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato (p. 8, t.s.n.,
articulated by Congressman Albano in his sponsorship Feb. 21, 1979). They alighted at the bus terminal in
speech on H. B. No. 124 (subsequently enacted as Rep. Midsayap. Being all in uniform, armed and belonging to
Act No. 12, amending, among others, articles 295 and the same military outfit, they got acquainted and decided
296 of the Revised Penal Code). Said Congressman to drink ESQ rum, at the said bus terminal (pp. 10-11,
Albano: "Article 296 as a corollary of Article 295 would Supra).
change the definition heretofore known of the term
"band" under the law. The purpose of this amendment is While drinking, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon
to inject therein the element of aggravation, when any decided to join appellants in going to Pikit, North
member of the band carries an unlicensed firearm. " Cotabato, home base of appellants (p. 59, Id.). After
drinking for about an hour, appellant Mandolado got
IV. Habitual intoxication drunk and went inside the public market. Subsequently,
163
 AB
he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and Appellants were able to ride on a sand and gravel truck
started firing. His companions tried to dissuade him but which took them to Pikit, North Cotabato, arriving thereat
he nonetheless continued firing his gun (pp. 11-12, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. At their camp,
Supra). appellants returned their firearms, but did not report the
incident. In the evening, appellants attended a party at
Sensing trouble, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon the Pikit Elementary School (pp. 32-35, t.s.n., April 16,
ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with 1979). The following day, appellants proceeded to
some passengers on board. Appellants followed and Davao City but stopped at Kavocan where they stayed
boarded also the vehicle (pp, 13-15, Supra). The soldiers overnight.
forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to bring them to the
Midsayap crossing (p. 58, t.s.n., July 24,1978). Arriving at Davao City, the following morning, appellants
went to see a movie and afterwards proceeded to the
On their way, appellant Mandolado got his knife and tried Office of Doña Ana, a shipping firm (p. 40, Supra), where
to attack the driver (pp. 61-62, Supra). After appellants they saw a certain Sgt. Villanueva who was then leaving
alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away. for Luzon. Sgt. Villanueva informed the appellants that
Appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at they were suspects in the Tenorio and Mendoza killings.
the speeding vehicle (p. 51, t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1979) hitting Immediately thereafter, appellant Mandolado purchased
the right side of the back of the driver's sister who was two passenger tickets for Manila. The other ticket was for
then on board said vehicle (p. 64, t.s.n., July 24, 1978). appellant Ortillano (pp. 120-123, Supra). However,
While waiting for a ride at the Midsayap crossing a before appellants could board the ship bound for Manila,
privately owned jeep, driven by Herminigildo Tenorio, they were apprehended by a team led by Lt. Licas (p. 45,
passed by. On board said jeep which was bound for Supra). Appellants were brought to Pikit, North Cotabato
Cotabato City were Nolasco Mendoza and two (2) where they were investigated by Lts. Licas and
others, but the latter two alighted at said crossing. Maburang about the aforesaid killings. The following day,
Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon boarded the jeep. appellants were brought to the headquarters of the 2nd
Thereafter, appellants ran after the jeep, shout at MP Battalion at P.C. Hill, Cotabato City where they were
Herminigildo Tenorio the driver thereof, to stop the again investigated. In said investigation, after appellants
vehicle and subsequently, both appellants Mandolado were duly apprised of their constitutional rights, they
and Ortillano boarded the jeep (p. 34, Supra). On the executed and signed their respective sworn statements
way, both appellants kept firing their guns (pp. 54-55, (Exhs. "O" and "R"). Appellant Mandolado admitted the
t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1979) prompting Herminigildo Tenorio to killing of Tenorio and Mendoza (Exh. "Q"); whereas
remark, "Kung hindi kayo tatahimik, ibabangga ko itong appellant Ortillano admitted his presence at said killings
jeep" (Sworn Statement, Exh. Q., Mandolado) which and of his having fired his armalite downwards after
literally means, "if you will not stop firing your guns, I will appellant Mandolado fired upon the killed the afore-
ram this jeep into something. " named victims (Exh. "R ").

Upon learning that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City Silverio Balderosa, on October 3, 1977, at about 12:30
and not Pikit, North Cotabato, appellant Mandolado got p.m., was on board a "Pinoy" jeep. On his way home to
angry, "cocked" his gun and ordered the driver to stop Midsayap, he passed a jeep parked along the highway
(pp. 36-38, Supra). While the jeep was coming to a full towards the direction of Cotabato City and about 250
stop, Conrado Simon and Anacleto Erinada immediately meters away from the BPH building. The parked jeep
jumped off the jeep and ran towards their detachment was surrounded by several persons. Alighting from the
camp located some two hundred fifty meters away. "pinoy" jeep, he went near the parked jeep to see what
Appellants also got off the jeep. Thereupon, appellant happened. He saw the lifeless bodies of two persons,
Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit one sprawled along the highway whom he recognized as
the occupants of the jeep (Sworn Statement, Exh. Q, Nolasco Mendoza and the other whom he recognized as
Mandolado). Appellant Ortillano likewise, fired his Mr. Tenorio slumped on the wheel of the parked jeep
armalite, not at the occupants of said jeep but (pp. 13-15, t.s.n., July 24, 1978).
downwards hitting the ground. These bursts of gunfire Issue:
were heard by both Conrado Erinada and Anacleto
Simon who were then already about fifty meters away Ruling:
from the jeep while running towards their detachment
camp (pp. 38 and 42, t.s.n., Feb. 21, 1979). Although it I. Treachery
was then raining torrentially, Anacleto Simon recognized
the bursts of gunfire as those of a machine gun (p. 43, The killing of the two victims in the case at bar is
Supra). correctly qualified as murder, there being present the
qualifying circumstance of treachery which is alleged in
Appellants ran away from the scene and boarded the informations.
another vehicle, alighting at Pinaring crossing. Appellant
Mandolado proceeded to a house where he left his There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
belongings and changed his wet uniform (p. 104, Supra). crimes against the person, employing means, methods
After about an hour, they rode in a "Hino" passenger bus or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
bound for Midsayap. On board said bus was a certain specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
Mr. Leopoldo Jalandoni who was seated in front of the arising from the defense which the offended party might
appellants. make. (Art. 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code).

Upon reaching a BPH building near Nuling, Sultan The prosecution evidence is quite clear and explicit that
Kudarat, the passengers of said bus were ordered to when appellants alighted from the jeep, the accused
alight at the military check point but appellant Mandolado Mandolado immediately fired his .30 caliber machine gun
did not alight (pp. 10-13, t.s.n., Oct. 5, 1975). As the bus at the occupants of the jeep, the victims Nolasco
was not proceeding to Pikit, North Cotabato and upon Mendoza and Herminigildo Tenorio, and both of them
advice of Mr. Jalandoni, appellants alighted at the died instantaneously on the spot, and from this sudden
means or manner of attack, it can reasonably be
Midsayap crossing and waited for a bus bound for Pikit
concluded that it tended directly to insure its execution
(pp. 19-20, Supra).
without risk to the appellant-assailant and also deprive
the victims of any chance or opportunity to defend
164
 AB
themselves. We also rule that the particular means or V. Mitigating circumstance: Drunkenness
manner employed by the appellant-assailant was
consciously or deliberately sought and not a mere We, however, appreciate the mitigating circumstance of
accidental circumstance resorted to on the spur of the drunkenness in his favor, the same as We did to his co-
moment on the basis of the evidence that the appellant accused Martin Mandolado, the principal defendant.
had previously and repeatedly fired his .30 caliber
machine gun at the bus terminal in Midsayap and had 18. People v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449, 31 October
also fired the machine gun at the Ford Fiera which took
1979
them to Midsayap junction and that appellants waited for
sometime riding on board the jeep driven by Tenorio Facts: The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the
before they ordered the jeep to stop, alight therefrom lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs. Corazon
and then shoot the occupants therein.
Dioquino Paterno, sister of the deceased, Apolonio
Dioquino, Jr. She testified that at the time of the incident,
II. Abuse of authority she resided at Ventanilla Street, Pasay City. She lived at
Pasay City for about five months before moving to
There is no persuasive showing that herein appellants another dwelling at Timog Avenue, Quezon City. While
being draftees of the Army, in full military uniform and residing at Pasay City, she conceived a child and during
carrying their high-powered firearms, facilitated the
this period, it was not unusual for her, accompanied by
commission of the crimes they were charged.
her husband, to step out of the house in the wee hours
of the morning. They set out on these irregular walks
It may be conceded that as draftees, the accused could
about five times.
easily hitch hike with private vehicles, as in the case of
the deceased Tenorio's owner-type jeep, but there is no During her residence at Pasay City, her brother Apolonio
evidence that when they stopped the jeep the accused visited her family for about twenty times. Sometimes her
already intended to shoot the occupants of the vehicle. brother would stay instead at their parents' house at
Muntinlupa, Rizal. He usually spent his weekends in his
As it was held in People Pantoja, 25 SCRA 468, 471 residence at Bo. Balubad, Porac, Pampanga. Apolonio
which We reiterate that "There is nothing to show that
and her husband were very close to each other;
the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in
whenever Apolonio paid them a visit, he usually slept in
the Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The
mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an the house and sought their help on various problems.
army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he Before the incident which gave rise to this case,
misused his public position in the commission of the
Corazon's husband informed her that he saw Apolonio
crimes ... "
engaged in a drinking spree with his gang in front of an
establishment known as Bill's Place at M. de la Cruz
III. Abuse of confidence
Street. Pasay City. In her sworn statement before the
Pasay City Police executed on November 3, 1968,
There could be no abuse of confidence as the evidence Corazon surmised that her husband must have been
on record showed the lack of confidence by the victims
painting the town red ("nag good time") in that same
to the appellants, that this confidence was abused, and
place. Upon learning this information from her husband,
that the abuse of the confidence facilitated the
commission of the crimes. Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00
a.m. so she could fetch her brother. At that time, she had
In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as not been aware that Apolonio was in Pasay City; she
aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a relation had been of the belief that he was with his family in
of trust and confidence between the accused and one Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted
against whom the crime was committed and the accused him to escape the untoward influence of his gang. In
made use of such a relationship to commit the crime." It explaining the rationale for her noctural mission, she
is also essential that the confidence between the parties employed in her sworn statement the following language:
must be immediate and personal such as would give that "Dahil itong si Junior ay meron na kaming nabalitaan na
accused some advantage or make it easier for him to naaakay ng barkada niya sa paggawa ng hindi mabuti."
commit the crime; that such confidence was a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos
advantage of the offended party's belief that the former Street, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about
would not abuse said confidence. seven persons, including the two accused, Antonio
Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She recognized the two
In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any accused because they were former gangmates of her
personal or immediate relationship upon which brother; in fact, she knew them before the incident by
confidence might rest between the victims and the their aliases of "Tony Manok" and "Rene Bisugos"
assailants who had just met each other then. respectively.
Consequently, no confidence and abuse thereof could
have facilitated the crimes. Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused,
with Antonio carrying a long sharp instrument. Later, in
IV. Obvious ungratefulness the course of giving her sworn statement before the
Pasay City Police on , November 3, 1968, Corazon
There could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the positively Identified Antonio and Reynaldo, who were
commission of the crime for the simple reason that the then at the office of the General Investigation Section,
requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to Secret Service Division, Pasay City Police Department.
the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplated She also stated that if she saw the other members of the
under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are group again, perhaps she could likewise Identify them.
manifestly lacking or non-existent. At the trial, Corazon likewise pointed out the two
accused. During the incident, she exerted efforts to
In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms Identify the other group members, taking care to conceal
and holding their high-powered firearms cowed the herself as she did so. She heard a gunshot which
victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun caused her to seek cover.
point which certainly is no source of gratefulness or
appreciation.

165
 AB
When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, has been proven. We believe the correct rule is found in
about 20 meters away, she saw the group catch up with People vs. Proceso Bustos where alevosia was not
her brother and maltreat him. Some beat him with pieces appreciated because it was deemed included in abuse of
of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the superiority.
group scampered away in different directions. Antonio
was left behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate III. Nighttime
figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating
long knife. Corazon was not able to observe where circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity
Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to witness is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of
the scene. the offense; and the subjective test, under which
When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely
brother, she saw that he was bathed in a pool of his own sought by the offender. These two tests should be
blood. The incident threw her in a state of nervous applied in the alternative.
confusion, and she resolved to report the incident to her In this case, the subjective test is not passed because
younger sister, who lived at Lakandula Street, Pasay there is no showing that the accused purposely sought
City. Her sister in turn decided to break the news to their the cover of night time.
father at Muntinlupa.
Next, we proceed and apply the objective test, to
Subsequently, Corazon learned that the police determine whether nocturnity facilitated the killing of the
authorities were searching for her brother's gangmates victim. A group of men were engaged in a drinking
for having killed him. She also learned that the suspects spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased
were in hiding. On the same day — October 19, 1968 — by seven others. The criminal assault on the victim at
accompanied by her family, she went at 2:00 p.m. to the 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which
Police Department to inquire about her brother's corpse. handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged
They were directed to the Funeraria Popular, where an impunity by persuading the malefactors that it would be
autopsy was held. Sometime later, on November 1, difficult to determine their Identity because of the
1968, she transferred residence to Quezon City. darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the
Issue: streets. There circumstances combine to pass the
objective test, and we find that nocturnity is aggravating
Ruling: because it facilitated the commission of the offense.
Nocturnity enticed those with the lust to kill to follow their
I. Evident premeditation impulses with the false courage born out of the belief
The defense argued that evident premeditation was not that they could not be readily identified.
shown. We agree. Penalty:
Under normal conditions, conspiracy generally 19. People v. Rodas, G.R. No. 175881, 28 August
presupposes premeditation. But in the case of implied 2007
conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be
appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when Facts: On 9 August 1996, Titing Asenda, a resident of
the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time Boyos, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, was at
elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be Milaub, Denoyan, Zamboanga del Norte, to help his
determined if the accused had "sufficient time between brother, Danilo Asenda, in the harvesting of the latter’s
its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to corn.
consider and accept the consequences."
On the same day, at around 8:00 in the evening, a
There should be a showing that the accused had the benefit dance at Milaub, which was sponsored by Boboy
opportunity for reflection and persisted in executing his Raquilme,12 was being held. Among those roaming in
criminal design. the vicinity of the dance hall were Alberto Asonda and
Ernie Anggot. They stopped and hung out near the fence
II. Abuse of superior strength and not to watch the affair. Titing Asenda was standing near
treachery them. They saw Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose
The defense argued that treachery was not present. We Rodas, Jr., and Jose Rodas, Sr. surround Titing Asenda.
are so convinced. It is an elementary axiom that Suddenly, without a word, Charlito Rodas, armed with a
treachery can in no way be presumed but must be fully hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back. Armando
proven., Where the manner of the attack was not proven, Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the
the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt, left side of the nape causing him to fall. Thereafter, Jose
and the crime should be considered homicide only. Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the
latter used in hacking Titing, hitting him on the left elbow.
In People vs. Metran the aggravating circumstances of Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but
aid of armed men, abuse of superiority, and nocturnity, Armando Rodas prevented them by pointing a gun at
were considered as constituting treachery, which them and firing it towards the sky.
qualified the crime as murder, since there was no direct
evidence as to the manner of the attack. After the assailants left, Alberto Asonda and Ernie
Anggot approached Titing Asenda who was already
However, in this case we believe that the correct dead. They informed Danilo Asenda that his brother was
qualifying circumstance is not treachery, but abuse killed. The police arrived the following day after being
of superiority. informed of the incident.
Here we are confronted with a helpless victim killed by On the part of the defense, accused-appellants Armando
assailants superior to him in arms and in numbers. But Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr., and Vilma Rodas, the
the attack was not sudden nor unexpected, and the former’s wife, took the witness stand. The defense
element of surprise was lacking. The victim could have rested its case without marking and offering any
made a defense; hence, the assault involved some risk documentary evidence.
to the assailants. There being no showing when the
intent to kill was formed, it can not be said that treachery
166
 AB
Defense evidence showed that only Charlito Rodas and while the accused were armed with a hunting knife,
Jose Rodas, Jr. killed Titing Asenda. Appellant Jose chako and bolo. It is evident that the accused took
Rodas, Sr. denied any participation in the killing of Titing advantage of their combined strength to consummate
Asenda claiming he was not present in the benefit dance the offense. This aggravating circumstance, though,
and that he was in his home with his wife and infant cannot be separately appreciated because it is absorbed
granddaughter when the killing happened. He revealed in treachery.
that on the night of the killing, his son, Charlito Rodas,
who was carrying a hunting knife, arrived and told him he In People v. Parreno,51 we decreed:
killed somebody. He then brought his son to the As regards the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
municipal building of Siayan to surrender him to the superior strength, what should be considered is not that
police authorities. there were three, four, or more assailants as against one
Appellant Armando Rodas likewise denied he was one of victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of
those who killed Titing Asenda. He claimed that at the their combined strength in order to consummate the
time of the killing, he was in his house sleeping with his offense. While it is true that superiority in number does
children. He denied using a chako and firing a gun. He not per se mean superiority in strength, the appellants in
insisted it was his brothers, Charlito and Jose Jr., who this case did not only enjoy superiority in number, but
killed Titing Asenda because they pleaded guilty. were armed with a weapon, while the victim had no
means with which to defend himself. Thus, there was
To bolster the testimony of the appellants, Vilma Rodas obvious physical disparity between the protagonists and
testified that she was at the benefit dance when the abuse of superior strength on the part of the appellants.
killing happened. Armando and Jose Sr., she claimed, Abuse of superior strength attended the killing when the
did not participate in the killing. She said Charlito offenders took advantage of their combined strength in
stabbed Titing while Jose Jr. merely punched the victim. order to consummate the offense. However, the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be
Issue: appreciated separately, it being necessarily absorbed in
Ruling: treachery.

I. Evident premeditation 20. People v. Damaso, G.R. No. L-30116, 20

November 1978
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show the
presence of any of these elements. Facts: Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law, Victoriano
de la Cruz were residents of Barrio Bangar, municipality
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the of Victoria, province of Tarlac. At about 9 o'clock in the
following elements must be established: (1) the time evening of November 21, 1959, Donata and Victoriano
when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an heard the barkings of dogs outside their house. Shortly,
overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his two men armed with guns, entered, pointed their
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between weapons at them, tied up the hands of Victoriano,
decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect covered him with a blanket and asked Donata for the
upon the consequences of his act.47 Like any other wereabouts of her daughter Catalina Sabado. Stricken
circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident by fear, Donata kept silent and blocked the door leading
premeditation must be established by clear and positive to her daughter's room but was promptly pushed aside.
proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.48 The Donata was then ordered to open an "aparador" from
essence of premeditation is that the execution of the which the two men took valuables like jewelry, clothing,
criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection documents, and cutting instruments. All the while,
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during Donata and Victoriano could hear the movements and
a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. voices of some three to four other persons beneath the
house. The two men brought Catalina Sabado down
II. Nocturnity
from the house and then asked where they could find
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be Susana Sabado, Donata's other daughter who was then
considered against appellants. in her store located about five meters away in the same
house. Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening the
This circumstance is considered aggravating only when door to Susana's store. After several minutes, feeling
it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was that the intruders had left, Donata untied the hands of
especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused Victoriano and asked him to go to the store to see if her
for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this daughters were there. When the two women could not
aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, be found, Donata sent Victoriano to the barrio lieutenant
and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. to report the incident. Accordingly, Victoriano went to the
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity barrio lieutenant and the two later went to town to inform
does not become a modifying factor when the place is the police of the occurrence.
adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
offender’s immunity from identification or capture. On the same night, Chief of Police Pedro Valdez with the
aid of several policemen and a handful of civilians went
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to show that out in search for the Sabado sisters. It was only the
nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime, or was following morning when the two women were found
especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused already dead with wounds in several parts of their
for the purpose of impunity. The crime scene was bodies. They were found in a sugar plantation belonging
sufficiently lighted by a Petromax which led to the to one Ignacio Fabros, located about one hundred
identification of all the accused. meters from Donata Rebolledo's house.
III. Abuse of superior strength Issue:
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior Ruling:
strength attended the killing.
I. Band
There was glaring disparity of strength between the
victim and the four accused. The victim was unarmed
167
 AB
The aggravating circumstance of band exists whenever San Jose, same province, it was held up by a group of
more than three armed malefactors act together in the five or six armed men. One of these, later identified as
commission of an offense. herein appellant Pedro Baldera, who was then armed
with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was
Counsel concedes that at least three of the accused- followed by a hail of bullets coming from different
appellants, namely Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio, ,were directions. As a result, several passengers, among them
armed during the commission of the crime. He doubts, Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza,
however, whether accused Damaso carried any weapon were wounded. After the firing had ceased, appellant got
and whether the "two stones" carried by accused Espejo on the bus and, threatening the passengers with his gun,
fall under the category of "arms." took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana
But even granting that Espejo's stones do not constitute Villena. Another passenger named Francisco Mendoza
arms, the prosecution presented the following evidence was also relieved of his P3. Appellant then alighted and
to show that Damaso was also armed and, as such, ordered the bus to proceed, whereupon the driver
there were more than three of the accused who were headed for the municipal building of San Jose and there
armed: (1) that extrajudicial confession of Damaso reported the incident to the authorities. The wounded
himself (Exhibit "P") that he was carrying a caliber .22 were taken to the hospital, where Jose Cabrera died
paltik revolver; (2) the sworn statement of accused from his wounds on the following day. Jose Pastor, who
Eugenio (Exhibit "O") that Damaso had a caliber .22 was wounded in the left leg, was cured in two months,
paltik revolver; (3) the separate written confessions of while Francisco Mendoza's gunshot wound in the right
Alviar, Gregorio and Espejo (Exhibits R, Q, and "N") that shoulder healed in 15 days.
Damaso had a caliber .30 Springfield rifle; and (4) the For the above crime four persons were prosecuted and
testimonies of Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la tried under an information charging "robo en cuadrilla
Cruz that both men who entered their house (one of con homicidio y lesiones graves y lesiones menos
whom they later Identified as Damaso) were carrying graves." The case was dismissed as to two of the
firearms. It is clear from the above, that Damaso was accused due to insufficiency of evidence. But the other
armed during the night of the commission of the crime, two, Pedro Baldera and Miguel Blay, were, after trial,
and it is immaterial what kind of firearm he carried, the found guilty as charged and sentenced, the first to
only important thing being that he was armed. In this capital punishment, and the second to life imprisonment,
case, the presence of an armed band is to be considered both to pay the corresponding indemnity and
as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article proportionate costs.
14(6) of the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as the crime
committed was that provided for and penalized in Article Only the case against Pedro Baldera is now before us.
294, paragraph 1 and not under Article 295, Revised
Penal Code. Issue:

II. Treachery Ruling:

There was treachery in this case. I. Recividism

Treachery is present if the victim is killed while bound in The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against
such a manner as to be deprived of the opportunity to the accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of
repel the attack or escape with any possibility of his previous conviction for theft.
success. Ist appearing that crime was committed on or about
The fact that the bodies of Catalina and Susana were December 30, 1947 (Exhibit E) while the offense now
found dead with their arms tied behind their backs as charged took place seven days before that date.
well as the admission of Gregorio in his confession II. Band
(Exhibit "Q") that he killed the sisters while their arms
were held by Eugenio and Damaso lead Us to conclude The aggravating circumstance of band was appreciated
that the killing of the two women was done under in this case.
treacherous circumstances.
Counsel contended that the lower court erred in holding
III. Uninhabited place that the crime committed is robbery in band, alleging that
there was no sufficient proof that the perpetrators thereof
The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the numbered more than three armed men.
distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime,
but whether or not in the place of commission, there was The fact, however, that there were more than three
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. armed men in the group that held up the bus appears in
8 appellant's own confession and is also established by
the uncontradicted testimony of one of the government
Considering that the killing was done during nighttime witnesses. And the point is really not material because in
and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to the crime of robbery with homicide it is not essential that
obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was the robbery be in band, although that circumstance may
no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any be taken into account as an aggravation in the imposition
assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the of the penalty. And even if it be not be taken into account
solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact that as such in this case, there would still remain the other
they brought the victims to the sugarcane field aggravating circumstance that the robbery was
although they could have disposed of them right in perpetrated by attacking a vehicle (Art. 295, RPC), which
the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were is not offset by any mitigating circumstance.
found.
22. People v. Melendrez, G.R. No. 39913, 19
21. People v. Baldera, G.R. No. L-2390, 24 April 1950 December 1933
Facts: The evidence shows that at about 4 a.m. on
December 23, 1947, a Casa Manila bus loaded with Facts: On or about the 15th day of June, 1933, in the
passenger left Batangas, Batangas, bound for Manila. municipality of Pasay, Province of Rizal, Philippine
On the highway in barrio Calansayan, municipality of Islands, within two and one-half (2 ½) miles from the

168
 AB
limits of the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this court, the said accused conspiring together and
helping each other willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
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 following personal properties of the said Tin Buc Boc:

Money amounting to P30.26 Other Notes:

One(1) Elgin watch,  Art. 62(5)
gold plated and a gold 25.00
filled chain, valued at Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
One(1) Chinese ring,
signet solid gold, 13.50 (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced
valued at to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which
One(1) buntal hat, he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión
4.50
valued at correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
Nine (9) small
packages of "Camel" 1.35 (b) Upon a fourth conviction the culprit shall be
cigarettes sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
Nine (9) small which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
packages of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
1.26
"Chesterfield"
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall
cigarettes
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
Three (3) cans of
.81 which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
Milkmaid, valued at
prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusión
temporal in its minimum period.
Total 76.68
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of
to the damage and prejudice of the said Tin Buc Boc in the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
the total sum of seventy-six pesos and sixty-eight conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
centavos (P76.68), Philippine currency.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed
That the accused Ricardo Melendrez y Nieto is a to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years
habitual delinquent, he having been previously convicted from the date of his release or last conviction of the
by final judgment of competent courts twice of the crime crimes robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found
of theft and once of the crime of estafa and having been guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
last convicted of the crime of estafa on September 3,
1932. 23. US v. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, 28 August 1909

Facts: Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the

On the date of the trial of this case, Elias Martinez had 19th of January, 1909, while Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was
not been yet apprehended, for which reason only the seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in
other defendant Ricardo Melendrez y Nieto, who Cotabato, Moro Province, he suddenly received a wound
pleaded guilty to the charge, was arraigned. Whereupon,
on the head delivered from behind and inflicted with a
the court found him guilty of the crime charged in the
information and sentenced him to eight years and one kris. Ricardo Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was
day of prision mayor, and to serve an additional penalty standing behind the counter, upon hearing the noise and
of six years and one day of prision mayor for being a the cry of the wounded man, ran to his assistance and
habitual delinquent. From this judgment Ricardo found him lying on the ground. Meanwhile the aggressor,
Melendrez y Nieto appealed. the Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named
Choa, who was passing along the street, and just as the
Issue: latter was putting down his load in front of the door of a
store and was about to enter, attacked him with the
Ruling: same weapon, inflicting a severe wound in the left
shoulder, on account of which he fell to the ground. The
I. Recidivism
Moro, who came from the rancheria of Dupit and had
On the other hand, the fiscal contends that the entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped up in
aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be taken banana leaves, in the meantime escaped by running
into account against the appellant. This claim of the away from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman
fiscal is in accordance with the judgment rendered by and the Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the
this court in banc in the case of People vs. Aguinaldo former died within an hour, the record not stating the
while the old Penal Code was in force. But the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan Igual.
enforcement of the Revised Penal Code has resulted in
(Murder)
a difference of opinion regarding this point on the part of
the members of this court. Issue:
For this reason, after reviewing all the decisions affecting Ruling:
the matter, rendered by this court both in banc and in
division, it is now held that the aggravating I. Treachery
circumstance of recidivism should be taken into
It is unquestionable that by the means and form
account in imposing the principal penalty in its
employed in the attack the violent death of the said
corresponding degree, notwithstanding the fact that
Chinaman was consummated with deceit and treachery
the defendant is also sentenced to suffer an
(alevosia), one of the five qualifying circumstances
additional penalty as a habitual delinquent.

169
 AB
enumerated in the aforesaid article as calling for the incompatibility between the two, premeditation can not
greatest punishment. necessarily be considered as included merely because
an offer of money, reward or promise was made, for the
From the above facts fully substantiated in this case, it latter might have existed without the former, the one
appears beyond doubt that the crime of murder, defined being independent of the other.
and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code, was
committed on the person of the Chinaman Choa, in that In the present case there can be no doubt that after the
the deceased was unexpectedly and suddenly attacked, crime was agreed upon by means of a promise of
receiving a deep cut on the left shoulder at the moment reward, the criminal by his subsequent conduct showed
when he had just put down the load that he was carrying a persistency and firm intent in his plan to carry out the
and was about to start for the door of the store in front of crime which he intentionally agreed to execute, it being
which he stopped for the purpose of entering therein. As immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not conceive
a result of the tremendous wound inflicted upon him by the crime, once Manalinde obeyed the inducement and
the heavy and unexpected blow, he was unable, not only voluntarily executed it.
to defend himself, apart from the fact that he was
unarmed, but even to flee from the danger, and falling to 24. People v. Ilaoa, G.R. No. 94308, 16 June 1994
the ground, died in an hour's time. Facts: Pfc. Reynaldo P. Angeles was dispatched in the
II. Consideration of a price, reward, or early morning of 5 November 1987 to Tinio St., Sta.
promise Maria Phase I, Balibago, Angeles City, where the
decapitated body of a man, later identified through his
In the commission of the crime of murder the presence voter’s identification card as Nestor de Loyola, was
of aggravating circumstances 3 and 7 of article 10 of the found in a grassy portion thereof. Apart from the
Penal Code should be taken into consideration in that decapitation, the deceased bore forty-three (43) stab
promise of reward and premeditation are present, which wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the
in the present case are held to be generic, since the body. The head was found some two (2) feet away from
crime has already been qualified as committed with the the corpse.
treachery, because the accused confessed that he
voluntarily obeyed the order given him by Datto Mupuck Five persons, Ruben E. Ilaoa, Rogelio E. Ilaoa, Rodel E.
to go juramentado and kill someone in the town of Ilaoa, Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang, were charged
Cotabato, with the promise that if he escaped for the gruesome murder of Nestor de Loyola. However,
punishment he would be rewarded with a pretty woman. only the brothers Ruben and Rogelio stood trial since the
other accused escaped and were never apprehended.
Upon complying with the order the accused undoubtedly
acted of his own volition and with the knowledge that he On 15 June 1990, the RTC of Angeles City found Ruben
would inflict irreparable injury on some of his fellow- and Rogelio guilty of murder with the attendant
beings, depriving them of life without any reason circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of
whatever, well knowing that he was about to commit a superior strength and cruelty, and imposed upon them
most serious deed which the laws in force in this country the penalty of "life imprisonment." 1 The conviction was
and the constituted authorities could by no means based on the following circumstantial evidence:
permit. Datto Mupuck, who ordered and induced him to One. The deceased Nestor de Loyola was seen at about
commit the crimes, as well as the accused knew eleven o’clock in the evening of 4 November 1987, in a
perfectly well that he might be caught and punished in drinking session with his compadre Ruben Ilaoa together
the act of committing them. with Julius Eliginio, Edwin Tapang and a certain "Nang
III. Evident premeditation Kwang" outside Ruben’s apartment. 2

Two. The drunken voices of Ruben and Nestor engaged

As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable in an apparent argument were later on heard. 3 Nestor
that the accused, upon accepting the order and was then seen being kicked and mauled by Ruben and
undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, his brother Rodel, Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang. 4
deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully Nestor was crying all the while, "Pare, aray, aray!"
meditated over the nature and the consequences of the
Afterwards, Nestor, who appeared drunk, was seen
acts which, under orders received from the said datto, he
was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself being "dragged" 5 into Ruben Ilaoa’s apartment. Nestor
with a weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and was heard saying, "Pare, bakit ninyo ako ginaganito,
started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole hirap na hirap na ako!" 6
purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons
Three. Ruben Ilaoa and Julius Eliginio borrowed Alex
whom he did not know, and with whom he had never had
any trouble; nor did there exist any reason which, to a Villamil’s tricycle at about two o’clock the following
certain extent, might warrant his perverse deed. morning allegedly for the purpose of bringing to the
hospital a neighbor who was about to give birth. Ruben
The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and was seen driving the tricycle alone, with a sack which
the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the looked as though it contained a human body, placed in
first encountered, does not bar the consideration of the the sidecar. The tricycle was returned an hour later to
circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the Alex who noticed bloodstains on the floor. The latter
circumstances which characterize the crime, the thought that they were those of the pregnant woman.
perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury
are the same, and the fact that the victim was not Four. Blood was found on Ruben’s shirt when he was
predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the asked to lift it during the investigation by the police. 7
crime. The person having been deprived of his life by Moreover, Ruben’s hair near his right forehead was
deeds executed with deliberate intent, the crime is found partly burned and his shoes were splattered with
considered a premeditated one as the firm and blood. 8 Susan Ocampo, Ruben’s live-in partner, was
persistent intention of the accused from the moment, likewise seen in the early morning of 5 November 1987
before said death, when he received the order until the sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance of
crime was committed in manifestly evident. Even though their apartment.
in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or
promise, premeditation is sometimes present, the latter Issue:
not being inherent in the former, and there existing no
170
 AB
Ruling: Despite the foregoing, however, we hold Thereafter, the accused fled, the victim shouted for help.
appellant liable only for homicide, not murder, on the Upon hearing the shouts of the victim, the accused
ground that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the returned and stabbed the victim again in the middle part
information, namely, abuse of superior strength, cruelty of the chest. She (witness) then left the scene of the
and evident premeditation, were not sufficiently proved crime after the accused ran away.
to be appreciated against appellant.
She reported the matter to the authorities only on July
Abuse of superior strength cannot be considered 20, 1993 because she was afraid.2
because there was no evidence whatsoever that
appellant was physically superior to the deceased and xxx xxx xxx
that the former took advantage of such superior physical Florencio Castro testified among others that he saw the
strength to overcome the latter’s resistance to accused together with four others inside the Gloria
consummate the offense. The fact that Nestor de Memorial Homes along G. Tuason St. on October 14,
Loyola’s decapitated body bearing forty-three (43) stab 1992. One of them used the phone inside said place to
wounds, twenty-four (24) of which were fatal, was found call somebody. The rest stayed beside the one calling.
dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of He saw one of them open a notebook where a stainless
cruelty where there is no showing that appellant Ruben knife was inserted. He heard the one using the phone,
Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor de asking "kung nasaan." Thereafter, the group went out
Loyola to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him and left towards the direction of Balic-Balic.
unnecessary physical and moral pain.
Rogelio Robles, testified among others that the accused
Number of wounds alone is not the criterion for the Gari Bibat had been going to his place at 424 Berdad
appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. St., Sampaloc, Manila, for a long time already because
20 Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that the their Samahang Ilocano (SI) president, Tonton Montero,
victim’s dead body was dismembered. 21 is his (witness) neighbor. Before the incident occurred,
Evident premeditation cannot likewise be considered. Tonton Montero told him (witness) about a rumble in
There is nothing in the records to show that appellant, school whereby somebody died. The group of the
prior to the night in question, resolved to kill Nestor de accused was planning to take revenge against the
Loyola, nor is there proof to show that such killing was victim, Lloyd del Rosario.
the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his Issue:
part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that
the series of circumstances which culminated in the Ruling:
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no
I. Evident premeditation
interval of time separating them for calculation and
meditation. Here, we are of the irresistible conclusion that the
attendance of evident premeditation to qualify the killing
Absent any qualifying circumstance, Ruben Ilaoa
complained of to murder is borne out by the evidence.
should only be held liable for homicide.
There is evident premeditation when the following
Penalty:
requisites are met:
25. People v. Bibat, G.R. No. 124319, 13 May 1998
1. The time when the offender determined (conceived) to
Facts: From the record and evidence presented, it commit the crime;
appears that the accused Gari Bibat stabbed to death
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung
one Lloyd del Rosario on October 12, 1992 at around
to his determination; and
1:30 p.m. along G. Tuazon cor. Ma. Cristina Sts.,
Sampaloc, Manila. The victim was on his way to school 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination
waiting for a ride when he was stabbed. Thereafter the and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
suspect fled while the victim was brought to the United consequences of his act.
Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) where he was
pronounced dead on arrival. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection
The incident was witnessed by Nona Avila Cinco, a upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during
laundry woman, who testified that on October 14, 1992, the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
while she was at Funeraria Gloria waiting for her bettor, judgment.18
she saw a person about one meter away talking to the
accused. Said person told the accused "O pare, anduon The appellant, in his brief, implies that the first requisite
na. Puntahan mo na. Siguruhin mo lang na itumba mo of evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven,
na." to which the accused answered: "Oo ba. Ganito ba, contending, that:
ganito ba?" (as the witness was speaking, she was
. . . the aggravating circumstance of evident
demonstrating with her arms.)1
premeditation was appreciated by the trial court based
After hearing the accused, she (witness) left towards solely on the testimony of witness Rogelio Robles. The
Honrades Street to see another bettor. She first went said witness testified that accused-appellant and several
inside a house and after a while, she went outside where others often met in his (Rogelio Robles) house. In one of
she saw the accused along Honrades Street, entering an their meetings, accused-appellant and his companions
alley. She walked along with the accused. She and the hid some guns and "tusok" in the said witness' house.
accused were even able to look at each other. Other than these testimonies, the trial court proffered no
other rationale to justify the application of evident
While the victim was going out of a gate, the accused premeditation.19
hurried towards the victim and took a pointed object from
a notebook, then stabbed the victim in the left chest At first glance, it may seem that the first requisite of
twice. evident premeditation, [i.e. the time when the offender
determined (conceived) to commit the crime], was
She was only about 4 to 5 meters away from the scene appreciated by the lower court solely on the basis of the
of the crime. testimony of Rogelio Robles.
171
 AB
Fully aware that the appellant and his companions were fled, with the sound of Peter's defiant shout trailing them,
armed with guns and "tusok", it was but natural for "Come back, if you are brave!"
nobles to just observe the protagonists and not get
involved. Fear for his own life and that of his family may Peter then turned to his wounded father, but found him
have overcome whatever humanitarian inclination he already dead from his injuries. The post-mortem
had as a concerned citizen. examination conducted by Dr. Octavio Ortiz, Rural
Health Physician, disclosed four (4) stab wounds on the
Besides, even without the testimony of Rogelio Robles, deceased, all in the upper back. Two of these, which
the presence of the first requisite of evident penetraded the lungs and heart, were
premeditation appears to have been thoroughly and
sufficiently established. The determination or conception fatal.11
of the plan to kill the victim could be deduced from the Crisologo Empacis repaired to the clinic of Dr. Eustaquio
outward circumstances that happened on the fateful day Deiparine at the poblacion of Sibonga, Cebu, for
of October 14, 1992. Records show that at 11:30 in the treatment of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter,
morning of October 14, 1992, prosecution witness Nona arriving there between 10 and 11 o'clock that same
Cinco saw the accused with some companions at night. The doctor found Crisologo's wounds — described
Funeraria Gloria. She personally heard the plan to kill by him as a "(hacking) wound on the right side of the
someone. Another prosecution witness, Florencio neck and the right shoulder" — "so serious" as to require
Castro, who works at the Funeraria Gloria also saw the further treatment, even after they had been sutured. Dr.
group of Gari Bibat in the said place. At around 1:30 in Deiparine asked Crisologo how he had come by these
the afternoon, Nona Cinco saw the appellant for the wounds. Crisologo said that at around 6 to 7 o'clock that
second time. She saw the appellant hurry towards the evening, near the Papan Market, he was assaulted
victim, take a pointed thing from a notebook and with the without warning by a young man, who injured him with a
use of such weapon, stab the victim on the chest. These bolo.
overt acts clearly evinced that the appellant clung to his
resolution to kill the victim. Police officers came to Dr. Deiparine's clinic the
following morning, looking for a man might have been
From the time Nona Cinco heard the plan to kill treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They were
someone at 11:30 up to the killing incident at 1:30 in the directed to the public market where they came upon
afternoon of the same day, there was a sufficient lapse Crisologo, taking breakfast. They arrested him and
of time for appellant to reflect on the consequences of brought him to the Dumanjug INP Station. There,
his dastardly act. Crisologo was interrogated by the Station Commander,
As held in the case of People v. Dumdum20 "the killing P/Pfc. Rogelio Abrea, and gave a sworn statement.
of the deceased was aggravated by evident Crisologo was later brought to Municipal Judge Gerardo
premeditation, because the accused conceived of the Gestopa, before whom he took oath on his affidavit.
assault at least one hour before its perpetration." In the Before admnistering the oath, the Judge had a law
case under examination, two hours had elapsed from the graduate, one Victor Esguerra, called to assist Crisologo
time appellant clung to his determination to kill the victim and verify if he had voluntarily executed his sworn
up to the actual perpetration of the crime. statement.
26. People v. Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, 14 May 1993 The three (3) accused all took the witness stand in their
Facts: At about 9 o'clock on the night of September 16, defense,12 and gave stories different from that of the
1986, as Fidel Saromines and his wife, Camila, were prosecution witnesses.
about to close to their small store, located in their house Empacis confirmed the facts established by the
at Kanguha, Dumanjug, Cebu, two men came and asked prosecution witnesses, up to a point. He admitted that he
to buy some sardines and rice. They were Romualdo (or and Romualdo Langomez had indeed gone to the store
Maldo) Langomez and Crisologo Empacis. Camila of Fidel Saromines on the night in question, and had
served them and they proceeded to make a meal of the there partaken of a meal of sardines and rice. He also
rice and sardines. acknowledged that after taking their supper, Romualdo
After they finished eating, Romualdo told Fidel to sell him Langomez had gone upstairs to buy some cigarettes
cigarettes. As Fidel was handing over the cigarettes, from Fidel, and it was there the moments later, he saw
Romualdo announced a "hold-up" and commanded Fidel Romualdo and Fidel grappling with each other. He
to give up his money. As it happened, Fidel then had denies having joined Romualdo in attacking Fidel. He
P12,000.00 in his house, wrapped in cellophane. This he claims that when he saw Romualdo pull out a knife, he
started to give to Romualdo but as the latter was taking tried to stop Romualdo from using the knife on his
hold of the packet, Fidel suddenly decided to fight to adversary; that nonetheless, Romualdo succeeded in
keep his money. A struggle followed in the course of stabbing Fidel twice; that a teen-age boy came with a
which Romualdo stabbed Fidel about three times. bolo and lashed out at Romualdo but the latter was not
Crisologo joined in and with his own knife also stabbed hit because he pulled him to one side, and instead it was
Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside of the he (Empacis) who was struck at the right side of the
house; and a neighbor of the Saromineses, Balbino neck; that he then ran away towards his barrio and from
Bulak, recognized one of those doing the shooting as there he was brought by his neighbors to the clinic of Dr.
certain Carlito Antiga.8 A voice was heard from below Deiparine; that he was arrested by the police the
saying, "Stab him!"9 to which Langomez replied, "I following morning; that while being investigated at the
already stabbed (him)."10 municipal hall of Dumanjug, he told the investigator he
wished to avail of the assistance of counsel but his
From his little sister's room, Fidel's thirteen-year odl son, request went unheeded; and that while being
Peter, saw his father fighting for his life with Romualdo interrogated, some policemen were inflicting pain on him
and Crisologo Empacis. Heeding his father's cry, "Peter, by squeezing his injured back in order to force him to
help me!" (Suportahe ko, Peter!), Peter took hold of a admit his participation in the robbery-homicide at
"pinuti" (a long bolo), and rushed to his father's defense. Kanguha, Dumanjug.13
He struck out at Crisologo and inflicted two wounds on
him, one at the right shoulder, and the other, in the neck. The other two accused, Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga,
Romualdo and Crisologo jumped out of the house and denied any participation whatever in the crime. They
172
 AB
were both absolved by the Trial Court, which agreed with
them that the prosecution had indeed failed to clearly
and positively and their complicity in the offense. 27. People v. Bigcas, G.R. No. 94534, 2 July 1992

Issue: Facts:

Ruling: Version of the Prosecution

I. Craft or fraud Rosito Doydoy testified that after attending the last
prayers for his uncle which ended at 8:30 in the evening
The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was of July 25, 1988, he went home with his son, Rodel, to
properly appreciated against Empacis. his house some two kilometers away. On the way and at
a distance of about twelve meters, Doydoy saw three
He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers persons involved in a commotion. It was not so dark then
of the victim's store and on his pretext gained entry into as the moon was shining brightly. From behind tall cogon
the latter's store and later, into another part of his grass, he saw appellant Butron strike Ambrocio Palapar
dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of two times with a piece of wood on the latter's back. In his
this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of attempt to flee from his aggressor, Palapar passed
fraud or craft, e.g: where the accused — beside witness Doydoy who was then trying to hide
a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy himself and his son behind the bushes. Palapar was
gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they chased by appellant Bigcas who, upon catching up with
thereafter robbed and killed;24 the former stabbed him twice with a bolo at the back.
The chase continued until Bigcas was able to stab the
b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and victim again at the back of the latter's right knee. The
through this artifice, entered the house of the victim victim fell on the ground, after which he uttered, "Long,
whom they thereupon robbed and killed;25 stop because I will die of these wounds." Butron shouted
at him saying, "I will kill you, Boyax." He then
c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and
approached Palapar and hit him twice with a piece of
by this means gained entry into a house, in which they
wood on the right jaw. Bigcas, on his part, stabbed the
then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;26
supine victim several times. Thereafter, both appellants
d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of left the victim, with Butron telling Bigcas. "You own the
wine;27 killing and these two bolos and I will be with you
anywhere." 4
e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a
public utility vehicle;28 Jesus Calape, testified on essentially the same facts. He
declared that he left his house at 9:00 o'clock that same
f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as night to go to the house of his "kumpadre Imo," whose
being thristy, asking for drink of water.29 real name is Maximo Tiro, to borrow the latter's carabao
as he wanted to haul posts for his house. He purposely
II. Nighttime
went there that night because Tiro is usually out of his
The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly house during daytime. While on his way, he saw the
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the victim Palapar being attacked by the two appellants.
accused. Butron hit Palapar twice with a piece of wood at his back.
Bigcas told the victim to fight but the latter refused.
To be sure, nighttime is not per se aggravating. It must Palapar pleaded for his life but appellant Bigcas instead
be shown that nocturnity was deliberately and purposely stabbed him twice, also at the back. Due to his fear after
sought to facilitate, or that it actually facilitated, the seeing Bigcas stab the victim, Calape ran home and told
commission of the crime. In the case at bar, the lateness his wife what he witnessed. The next morning, he heard
of the hour no doubt precluded the presence of other that the victim died. 5
customers who could have deterred the felons, or come
to the aid of the victim. Version of the Defense

All things considered, there is adequate showing that It is claimed that on July 28, 1988, at around 2:30 in the
nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and afternoon, Rodrigo Bigcas was at the store of a certain
did in reality facilitate the perpetration of the felony. Efren Butron at Buyong, Pilar. At about 6:30 P.M.,
Quiliano Butron arrived at the same store. A few minutes
III. Abuse of superior strength later, Ambrocio Palapar, who was apparently already
intoxicated, arrived and drank 'tuba' with the group of
For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength to
Bigcas and Butron. Palapar requested for more drinks
be deemed present in a case, it does not suffice to prove
but Quiliano Butron refused as he had no more money.
superiority in number on the part of the malefactors; it
Palapar got angry and called Butron stingy. He
must appear that they purposely employed excessive
challenged Butron to fight but the latter remonstrated
force, force out of proportion to the means of defense
with him. Palapar then placed his hand on Butron's
available to the person attacked.
shoulders and told him not to worry. He thereafter held
In this case, the evidence shows that Empacis helped the waist of Butron, grabbed the knife that was hanging
his co-accused by also stabbing the victim; he and his from the latter's waist and challenged everybody to fight.
companion took advantage of their combined strength Someone reported the incident to the police and, later
and their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed on, Pfc. Ponciano Butron responded together with
victim and assure the success of their felonious design another policeman. Pfc. Butron took the knife from
to make off with his money. Palapar and ordered the latter to go home, but he
required Bigcas and Butron to stay a while and let
IV. Dwelling Palapar leave ahead. Around fifteen minutes after
That the crime was "committed in the dwelling of the Palapar had left, Bigcas and Butron left together with
offended party, . . . the latter . . . not (having) given some other persons. Butron walked ahead as he was
provocation," was also correctly appreciated as an bringing something for his family. 6
aggravating circumstance.

173
 AB
Later, on their way, Bigcas and a certain Anasco met We are likewise not convinced that the crime was
appellant Butron running and already wounded. Out of committed by appellants with abuse or by taking
fear, Anasco ran away. Bigcas brought Butron to advantage of superior strength.
surrender to the police at the municipal building of Pilar,
Bohol. Butron reported to the police that he was waylaid Regrettably, we can neither determine nor deduce from
by Palapar on his way home. Bigcas later accompanied the prosecution's sketchy evidence thereon what
Butron to the Simeon Toribio Hospital in Carmen, Bohol transpired before the "commotion" involving the victims
where Butron was confined. 7 Butron complemented the and appellants. The two eyewitnesses, Doydoy and
foregoing testimony by narrating that, on his way home, Calape testified only on the fight when it was already in
he saw Palapar standing in the middle of the road. He progress but not as to the actuations of the parties
greeted Palapar by his nickname "Boyax" but received proximately and immediately before the altercation. On
no answer. As he was passing by Palapar, the latter the other hand, following the version of the defense
suddenly stabbed him with a bolo, hitting his stomach. which was partly confirmed by Pfc. Ponciano Butron, the
He backtracked but the victim followed him and gave him victim was ordered by said policeman to leave the store
three stab thrusts which he parried. He was able to take of Efren Butron ahead of the others, with appellants
hold of the victim's hand holding the bolo and wrestled directed to stay behind for about fifteen minutes, so that
the same from him. Butron then repeatedly stabbed the parties would not encounter each other again shortly
Palapar until the latter fell. When he went to the police, after the incident at said store.
he also surrendered the bolo used in the alleged killing. V. Mitigating circumstance: Voluntary
Butron was brought by Bigcas and the police to the surrender
hospital where he was treated and confined for four
days. 8 Penalty: All told, it is our considered view that appellants
have committed only the felony of homicide, since
Issue: treachery was not proved and abuse of superior strength
Ruling: cannot be considered against them. Neither is the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity attendant in this
I. Justifying circumstance: Self-defense case. On the contrary, what has been completely
overlooked is the fact that appellant Butron and,
There is no self-defense in this case. resolving the doubt in his favor, appellant Bigcas are, as
The results of the autopsy conducted by Dr. Lourdes we hereby find them to be, entitled to the mitigating
Atop-Tan on the victim showed that the latter sustained circumstance of voluntary surrender which was
more or less thirteen wounds. established by their testimonies 29 and substantiated by
Pfc. Ponciano Butron. 30
Appellant Butron claims that he himself was wounded
while he was wresting the knife away from the victim. His WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is
own doctor, however, testified that his wounds in the MODIFIED, with accused-appellants being hereby
stomach and on his neck were merely superficial and DECLARED guilty of homicide, with due extenuation by
admit of the possibility of having been self-inflicted. 20 voluntary surrender, and each of them is hereby
As the trial court observed, it is incredible that the victim SENTENCED to serve an indeterminate sentence of ten
who was supposedly wielding a bolo could only inflict (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
two small skin-deep wounds on the allegedly years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal,
defenseless Butron. maximum. The death indemnity is hereby increased to
P50,000.00 in accordance with current case law. 31 In
The foregoing incontrovertible physical evidence, and a all other respects, the judgment of the court a quo is
comparison of the wounds sustained by appellant Butron AFFIRMED.
and those inflicted, on the victim, clearly and
undoubtedly belie appellant's pretension of self-defense. 28. People v. Sangalang, G.R. No. L-32914, 30
August 1974
II. Nighttime
Facts: The testimonies of the two prosecution
Its acceptance of nocturnity as an aggravating eyewitnesses disclose that at around six o'clock in the
circumstance, however, is erroneous. morning of June 9, 1968 Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut
located at Sitio Adlas, Barrio Biluso, Silang, Cavite to
Even the prosecution witnesses testified that, during the
gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby. Flora Sarno, his
incident, the moon was shining brightly. The light was
wife, was left inside the hut. While he was on top of the
bright enough to see what was going on and to
tree gathering tuba, he was struck by a volley of shots.
recognize the assailants. Moreover, nocturnity neither
He fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree.
facilitated the commission of the crime nor was it
purposely sought by appellants in order to afford His wife Flora heard three successive shot coming south
impunity. It, therefore, does not qualify as an aggravating of the hut. She went outside the hut. From a distance of
circumstance under either the subjective or objective about twenty-five meters, she saw five men, each armed
tests laid down by this Court for it to be considered as with a long firearm, firing at her husband. He was
such. 23 already wounded and was lying on the ground at the foot
of the coconut tree. His assailants were about five
III. Treachery
meters away from him.
The trial court's holding that treachery cannot be
She recognized Laureano Sangalang as one of the five
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance against
armed men who were firing at her husband. She and her
appellants is correct, since there is no evidence that in
brother Ricardo had known Sangalang since their
the commission of the crime they deliberately adopted
childhood. She also recognized Conrado Gonzales,
means, methods or forms considered in law as
Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel and Eleuterio Cuyom as
treacherous.
the other malefactors.
IV. Abuse of superior strength
Flora ran towards the place where her husband had
fallen. She shouted, "Bakit ninyo pinagbabaril ang aking
asawa". The five persons fired at her. She was then

174
 AB
about twenty meters away from them. She retreated to Facts: In the afternoon of June 2, 1970, the lifeless body
the hut for cover. She heard some more shots. After the of a person was found somewhere between the barrios
lapse of about five minutes, Laureano Sangalang and his of Masaya and Paciano Rizal Municipality of Bay,
companions left the place. When Flora returned to the Laguna. The body was brought to the municipal building
spot where her husband was prostrate, he was already of Bay for autopsy. Dr. Fe Manansala-Pantas, in her
dead. autopsy report, Exh. B, noted that the deceased died of
profuse hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated and stab
On the occasion already described, Ricardo Sarno, wounds and multiple abrasions found on the different
twenty-seven years old, a brother of Flora, was inside his parts of the body of the deceased.
own nipa hut which was about ten meters away from
Flora's hut. He was drinking coffee. His wife and children The deceased was identified to be Felimon Rivera, a
were eating breakfast. He heard several shots. He came driver of a passenger jeep belonging to Pablito delos
out of his hut. He saw his brother-in-law being shot by Reyes, a fruit vendor. Earlier in the day, Rivera was out
Laureano Sangalang, Eleuterio Cuyom, Perino Canuel, driving the jeep. But that was to be the last time for him
Irineo Canuel and Conrado Gonzales. He saw to drive the jeep for on that same day, he was killed, and
Sangalang using a Garand carbine in shooting his his jeep was no longer found or recovered.
brother-in-law. The latter fell from the top of the coconut
tree after he was shot (10 tsn). His sister Flora was It was not until June 11, 1971, that the police authorities
trying to approach her husband but she had to flee to her found a concrete lead to the solution of the case.
hut when Sangalang and his companions fired at her. He Rodrigo Esguerra, when apprehended and interviewed
wanted to join her but he was likewise fired upon by the by the police, admitted his participation and named his
five men. So, he retired and took refuge in his own hut. companions. He gave a written statement, Exh. F. Soon
the police began rounding up the other suspects.
Later, Sarno saw his sister Flora, sitting inside her hut.
He followed her after she left the hut and went to see her Artemio Banasihan was apprehended sometime in 1972.
dead husband, who was lying on the ground, face up, at On March 3 of said year, he was investigated by Sgt.
the base of the coconut tree. When he noticed that his Juan Tolentino of the Philippine Constabulary. He gave a
brother-in-law was already dead, he gathered his statement which was sworn to before the Acting
children and brought them to Sitio Biga, which was more Municipal Judge of Los Baños, Laguna, confessing his
or less thirty meters away from his hut in Sitio Adlas. participation in the robbery and killing of Felimon Rivera
Ricardo reported the killing to the chief of police who (Exh. H). In said statement, Banasihan recounted that
went to the scene of the crime with some policemen and four days before June 2, 1970, he and his co-accused
Constabularymen. met and planned to get the jeep driven by the deceased.
Carrying out their plan, he and Luisito San Pedro
The necropsy report shows that the twenty-five-year-old approached Rivera in the afternoon of June 2, 1970 and
Cortez sustained twenty-three gunshot wounds on the on the pretext of hiring Rivera's jeep to haul coconuts,
different parts of the body, fourteen of which were they proceeded to Bo. Puypuy in Bay, Laguna, where
entrance-wounds, and nine were exit-wounds (Exh. A they were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo
and B). He died due to the multiple gunshot wounds Esguerra. Esguerra was then carrying a water pipe
(Exh. C). wrapped in paper. Upon reaching a river between the
barrios of Mainit and Puypuy San Pedro ordered Rivera
(Murder) to stop. Whereupon, at Esguerra's signal, Litan hit
Issue: Rivera at the nape with the water pipe. Rivera jumped
out of the jeep but was chased by San Pedro and Litan
Ruling: who stabbed him at the back several times with a
dagger. Esguerra then drove the jeep and the group
I. Treachery
proceeded to Makati, Rizal, He then joined Nelson Piso
The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia), and Antonio Borja. The jeep was brought to Cavite City
which was alleged in the information, was duly where it was sold for P2,000.00. Four days later, Piso
established (See art. 14[16], Revised Penal Code). went to Los Baños and gave San Pedro, Litan and
Banasihan P50.00 each, with the promise that the
The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top balance would be given later. However, the promised
of a coconut tree. He was unarmed and defenseless. He balance was not given them.
was not expecting to be assaulted. He did not give any
immediate provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack Issue:
shows that Sangalang and his companions employed a
I. Whether the aggravating circumstance of craft is
mode of execution which insured the killing without any
absorbed by treachery.
risk to them arising from any defense which the victim
II. Whether the resulting single aggravating
could have made. Hence, the killing can be categorized
circumstance of treachery should be offset by
as murder. Treachery absorbs the aggravating
the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction,
circumstance of band.
as appellant claims should be appreciated in his
II. Evident premeditation favor, thereby calling for the reduction of the
death penalty to that of life imprisonment.
Evident premeditation, which was alleged in the
information, was not proven. Ruling:

Penalty: The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of I. Craft absorbed by treachery
reclusion perpetua on Sangalang (Arts. 64[1] and 248,
We cannot subscribe to the theory of craft being
Revised Penal Code).
absorbed by treachery, as nighttime and abuse of
Penalty: superior strength may be so absorbed, as held in
numerous decisions of this Court.
29. People v. San Pedro, G.R. No. L-44274, 22
January 1980 In the instant case, craft was employed not with a view to
making treachery more effective as nighttime and abuse
of superior strength would in the killing of the victim. It

175
 AB
was directed actually towards facilitating the taking of the Dr. Bienvenido Munoz, the medico-legal officer who
jeep in the robbery scheme as planned by the culprits. autopsied Tony's cadaver, testified that the proximate
From the definition of treachery, it is manifest that the cause of Tony's death was the stab wound on his left
element of defense against bodily injury makes treachery chest. Tony also suffered several incised wounds and
proper for consideration only in crimes against person as abrasions, indicating that he tried to resist the attack.
so explicitly provided by the Revised Penal Code.
Version of the Defense
II. Second issue
On May 25, 1993, the late Antonio Dometita was found
With the presence of two aggravating circumstances, dead by the police officers at the alley on the right side of
craft and treachery, it would make no difference even if the Iglesia ni Cristo Church at EDSA in Bago Bantay.
the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction were
appreciated in appellant's favor which is even doubtful It is the theory of the prosecution that the deceased
from the fact alone, as was allegedly proven by the Antonio Dometita was stabbed by the accused Robert
testimony of appellant that he cannot read and write but Castillo y Mones as testified to by Leo Velasco. The
can only sign his name. corroboration of Leo Velasco's testimony is that of
Melinda Mercado who (tsn Oct. 11, 1993) stated that Leo
This, apart from the fact that as held categorically in the Velasco informed her that Dometita was stabbed. Robert
case of People vs. Enot, 6 SCRA 325 (1962) lack of Castillo was walking away from the pubhouse with the
instruction is not applicable to crimes of theft and bladed weapon. Leo Velasco himself detailed the way
robbery, much less to the crime of homicide. The reason Castillo stabbed the deceased Antonio Dometita.
is that robbery and killing are, by their nature, wrongful
acts, and are manifestly so to the enlightened, equally as On the other hand the defense claims that the deceased
to the ignorant. died in the alley at the right side of the church. That
decedent Dometita was attacked by two malefactors as
The "criteria in determining lack of instruction is not testified to by Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver who
illiteracy alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence." saw two people ganging up on a third. The same witness
It is significant that neither to the trial court nor to the saw the victim falling to the ground. (tsn January 5,
appellant's counsel has the mitigating circumstance of 1994, page 8). A report of Edilberto Marcelino to the
lack of instruction entered the mind. No attempt was Barangay Tanod's Office was made in the blotter of the
made to prove it, as direct proof, not mere inference, is Barangay and the extract (xerox of the page) was
required, and must be invoked in the court below, the marked as Exhibit "2"
reason being that the trial court can best gauge a
person's level of intelligence from his manner of Issue:
answering questions in court. If the trial court did not Ruling: The Court agrees with the trial court that
consider the mitigating circumstance invoked for the first appellant is guilty of murder for the death of Antonio
time here on appeal, it must be because from appellant's Dometita.
testimony, and even more so from his given occupation
as a merchant, his alleged lack of intelligence never I. Evident premeditation
suggested itself to the trial court or to his lawyer, as
We likewise agree that the prosecution was unable to
entitling him to the mitigating circumstance of lack of
prove the aggravating circumstance of evident
instruction.
premeditation.
Penalty: WHEREFORE, there being no error committed
For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be
by the trial court, its decision imposing the death penalty,
proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the
together with the indemnity awarded, has to be, as it is
following elements: 1) the time when the offender
hereby, affirmed.
determined to commit the crime, 2) an act manifestly
30. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 120282, 20 April 1998 indicating that he clung to his determination, and 3) a
sufficient lapse of time between determination and
Facts: execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the
Version of the Prosecution consequences of his act.

On May 25, 1993, around one o'clock in the morning, These requisites were never established by the
Eulogio Velasco, floor manager of the Cola Pubhouse prosecution.
along EDSA, Project 7, Veteran's Village, Quezon City, II. Abuse of superior strength
was sitting outside the Pubhouse talking with his co-
worker, Dorie. Soon, Antonio "Tony" Dometita, one of We disagree with the trial court that the killing was
their customers, came out of the pubhouse. As he qualified by abuse of superior strength.
passed by, he informed Eulogio that he was going home.
"To properly appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
When Tony Dometita was about an armslength [sic] from
abuse of superior strength, the prosecution must prove
Eulogio, however, appellant Robert Castillo suddenly
that the assailant purposely used excessive force out of
appeared and, without warning, stabbed Tony with a fan
proportion to the means of defense available to the
knife on his left chest. As Tony pleaded for help,
person attacked."
appellant stabbed him once more, hitting him on the left
hand. The prosecution did not demonstrate that there was a
marked difference in the stature and build of the victim
Responding to Tony's cry for help, Eulogio placed a
and the appellant which would have precluded an
chair between Tony and appellant to stop appellant from
appropriate defense from the victim. Not even the use of
further attacking Tony. He also shouted at Tony to run
a bladed instrument would constitute abuse of superior
away. Tony ran towards the other side of EDSA, but
strength if the victim was adequately prepared to face an
appellant pursued him.
attack, or if he was obviously physically superior to the
Eulogio came to know later that Tony had died. His body assailant.
was found outside the fence of the Iglesia ni Cristo
III. Treachery
Compound, EDSA, Quezon City.
We hold that the killing was qualified by treachery.
176
 AB
Treachery is committed when two conditions concur, driving the bus and not report the incident along the way.
namely, that the means, methods, and forms of The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will follow
execution employed gave the person attacked no their instructions, he will not be harmed. Victor and Juan
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and that ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in
such means, methods, and forms of execution were Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus.
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused The robbery was over in 25 minutes.
without danger to his person.
When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga,
These requisites were evidently present in this case Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to
when the accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly the police authorities. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just, he was bidding was brought to the funeral parlor where Dr. Alejandro D.
goodbye to his friend, Witness Velasco. Said action Tolentino, the Municipal Health Officer of Mabalacat,
rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the
presence of "defense wounds" does not negate police officer.
treachery because, as testified to by Velasco, the first
stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest. The Issue:
incised wounds in the arms were inflicted when the I. Whether or not treachery is a generic
victim was already rendered defenseless. aggravating circumstance in robbery with
31. People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, 4 April 2003 homicide; and if in the affirmative;
II. Whether treachery may be appreciated against
Facts: On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, Rodolfo Juan and Victor.
Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star Passenger Bus
bearing Plate No. ABS-793, drove the bus from its Ruling:
terminal at Pasay City to its destination in Bolinao, I. First issue
Pangasinan. Also on board was Romulo Digap, the
regular conductor of the bus, as well as some On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative.
passengers. At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers
This Court has ruled over the years that treachery is a
boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan
generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of
Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants,
robbery with homicide, a special complex crime (un
rubber shoes, hats and jackets.2 Juan seated himself on
delito especial complejo) and at the same time a single
the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the
and indivisible offense (uno solo indivisible).55 However,
passengers' seats, while Victor stood by the door in the
this Court in two cases has held that robbery with
mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another
homicide is a crime against property and hence
passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of
treachery which is appreciated only to crimes against
Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus
persons should not be appreciated as a generic
on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist
aggravating circumstance.56 It held in another case that
was his service gun bearing Serial Number 769806.
treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape
Every now and then, Rodolfo looked at the side view
precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against
mirror as well as the rear view and center mirrors
property.
installed atop the driver's seat to monitor any incoming
and overtaking vehicles and to observe the passengers Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to
of the bus. robbery with homicide although said crime is classified
as a crime against property and a single and indivisible
The lights of the bus were on even as some of the
crime. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance
passengers slept. When the bus was travelling along the
because as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain in its
highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly
decision dated September 11, 1878, the word "homicide"
stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a
is used in its broadest and most generic sense.
holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror
towards the passengers' seat and saw Juan and Victor Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide.
armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to Neither does it constitute a crime specially punishable by
awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor followed law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of
suit and fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty
accosted the passengers and divested them of their therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime
money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery should be
he had collected from the passengers. The felons then considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in
went to the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper
that he show them his identification card and wallet. penalty for the crime.
Manio, Jr. brought out his identification card bearing No.
00898.3 Juan and Victor took the identification card of II. Second issue
the police officer as well as his service gun and told him:
On the second issue, we also rule in the affirmative.
"Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin
and papatay sa iyo." The police officer pleaded for Article 62, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which
mercy: "Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako." was taken from Article 80 of the Codigo Penal
However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police Reformado de 1870,73 provides that circumstances
officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and which consist in the material execution of the act, or in
right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus. Victor and Juan aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only
then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution
themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain of the act or their cooperation therein.
the speed of the bus. Rodolfo heard one of the felons
saying: "Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang The circumstances attending the commission of a crime
pumapatay ng manok." The other said: "Ayos na naman either relate to the persons participating in the crime or
tayo pare. Malaki-laki ito." Victor and Juan further told into its manner of execution or to the means employed.
Rodolfo that after they (Victor and Juan) shall have The latter has a direct bearing upon the criminal liability
alighted from the bus, he (Rodolfo) should continue of all the accused who have knowledge thereof at the
177
 AB
time of the commission of the crime or of their because the latter was a barber at REGANDOs
cooperation thereon.74 Accordingly, the Spanish neighborhood. He believed that the victim was already
Supreme Court held in its Sentencia dated December dead, since the latter did not seem to be breathing.
17, 1875 that where two or more persons perpetrate the When policemen arrived, REGANDO moved away from
crime of robbery with homicide, the generic aggravating the scene; he did not want to be asked about the
circumstance of treachery shall be appreciated against incident, as he knew nothing about it. On 7 May 1994, he
all of the felons who had knowledge of the manner of the was arrested by Malabon policemen after Edgar Jimenez
killing of victims of homicide. identified him as one of the assailants. He opined that
Edgar implicated him in the crime because they had an
III. On the appreciation of treachery as an altercation during a basketball game, which altercation
aggravating circumstance could have erupted into a fistfight had they not been
Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated pacified.
against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the Issue:
same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Ruling:
Procedures.
I. Treachery
Although at the time the crime was committed, generic
aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the We do not share the assessment of the trial court that
Information, however, the general rule had been applied there was no treachery in this case because the victim
retroactively because if it is more favorable to the had engaged in a fight previous to the killing and was
accused.76 Even if treachery is proven but it is not thus forewarned of an attack against him.
alleged in the information, treachery cannot aggravate Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim
the penalty for the crime. was forewarned of danger to his person. What is
Penalty: There being no modifying circumstances in the decisive is that the execution of the attack made it
commission of the felony of robbery with homicide, Juan impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
and Victor should each be meted the penalty of reclusion retaliate.31 The overwhelming number of the accused,
perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised their use of weapons against the unarmed victim, and
Penal Code. the fact that the victim’s hands were held behind him
preclude the possibility of any defense by the victim.
32. People v. Villonez, G.R. Nos. 122976-77, 16
November 1998 II. Abuse of superior strength

Facts: The other qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior

strength, which the trial court appreciated, will no longer
Version of the Prosecution be taken against accused-appellants, for it is absorbed in
treachery.
Edgar Jimenez testified that on 3 May 1994, at around
9:00 p.m., while he was resting inside his store at Hulo, Penalty: The penalty for the murder is reclusion
Malabon, Metro Manila, a certain Tonton informed him perpetua to death pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised
that his close friend GERARDO LONGASA had a Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659. There being
fistfight with one Rudy, alias Dede, at Liwayway Street, no mitigating or aggravating circumstance proved in
Baritan, Malabon. Edgar proceeded to the area to favor of or against EMERLITO and REGANDO, the trial
mediate, since LONGASA and Rudy were both his court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
friends. Edgar passed through Javier II Street in going to perpetua.33cräläwvirtualibräry
Liwayway Street. At Javier II Street, a group of seven
armed men, including accused-appellants, attacked As to RUEL, who was only 16 years old when the
Edgar. RUEL hit Edgar on his forehead and back with a offense in question was committed, the trial court
bottle. Edgar was able to escape from his attackers. correctly appreciated in his favor the privileged mitigating
While fleeing, he ran past LONGASA, who seemed circumstance of minority. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of
drunk. When Edgar called LONGASA, the attackers Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next
were already upon LONGASA. lower to that prescribed by law shall be imposed; in this
case the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.34 Again,
While he was about eight arms length away from there being no proof of any modifying circumstance, said
LONGASA, Edgar saw EMERLITO hit LONGASA with a penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.35 Since
2 x 2 inches piece of wood. Simultaneously, REGANDO RUEL is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate
and RUEL struck LONGASA with bottles. Rudy Santos Sentence Law, he shall be sentenced to suffer an
and Eddie Santos then stabbed LONGASA seven and indeterminate penalty whose minimum shall be within
eight times, respectively, even as two other persons the range of prision mayor and whose maximum shall be
named Rey and Budda held LONGASAs arms. within the range of reclusion temporal. The penalty
LONGASA fell to the ground. Edgar saw all these imposed upon him by the trial court, i.e., ten years of
because the scene of the incident was illuminated by a prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years of
big fluorescent lamp located about three arm’s length reclusion temporal as maximum, is therefore correct.
away. Edgar rushed to LONGASA’s house and reported
the incident to the latter’s parents. 33. People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, 26 January
2007
Version of the Defense
Facts:
REGANDO interposed alibi and denial. He claimed that
on 3 May 1994, between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m., he was Version of the Prosecution
having a conversation with Arthur Aquino at the Ronald is a jeepney driver and resident of Barangay
premises of RUELs house. Someone passed by the Commonwealth, Quezon City. He testified that on 25
house and reported a slaying incident at Javier II Street. November 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he
Curious, REGANDO and Aquino went to the scene of stopped by and ate at a carinderia located at the corner
the incident and there found LONGASA lying in a pool of of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, Brgy.
his own blood. REGANDO recognized LONGASA Commonwealth, Quezon City. After eating, he sat on a
178
 AB
bench just beside the carinderia and rested. He noticed would turn over to him the proceeds thereof. He also
appellant and two other persons having a drinking spree stated that Michael wanted to become a pilot so that, as
in a nearby grocery store. He also saw Michael walking the eldest of the children, he would be the one to
towards the direction of the same grocery store. When shoulder the education of his siblings.10
Michael was passing in front of the grocery store,
appellant and his two companions suddenly approached Inspector Malaza is a member of the police force
and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at assigned at Police Community Precinct No. 1, Batasan
the back of Michael while his two companions stood in Hills, Quezon City. He testified that on 25 November
front of Michael. Suddenly, they grabbed the shoulders 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he was on his way
of Michael and overpowered the latter. One of home on board his owner type jeep. Upon reaching the
appellant’s companions, whom he described as a male corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, Brgy.
with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Commonwealth, Quezon City, he noticed a commotion
Michael at the stomach. Afterwards, the appellant’s other nearby. He slowed down his vehicle and saw, at a
companion, whom he described as a male with flat top distance of five to ten meters, appellant stabbing and
hair, took the knife from the companion with long hair, kicking Michael. He also noticed that the appellant’s two
and also stabbed Michael at the stomach. Later, companions were armed with bladed weapons. He
appellant went in front of Michael, took the knife from the alighted from his vehicle and approached appellant and
companion with flat top hair, and likewise stabbed his two companions. After introducing himself as a police
Michael at the stomach. Appellant also kicked Michael officer, appellant and his two companions scampered
when the latter was already lying on the ground. He away. He ran after them but caught only appellant. The
witnessed this stabbing incident at a distance of five two other companions of the appellant successfully
arms’ length.5 escaped. Thereafter, he handcuffed appellant and
brought him to Batasan Hills Police Station 6. He turned
Afraid and confused, he immediately went home. The him over to a police investigator therein and executed an
next day, however, he went to the house of Michael’s affidavit of arrest.11
family and narrated the incident to Michael’s father,
Danilo. Subsequently, he was accompanied by Danilo to SPO3 Quinto is a police investigator at the Batasan Hills
the Batasan Hills Police Station 6 where he gave a Police Station 6. He was the one who investigated the
statement about the incident.6 incident. After the incident was reported to his station on
26 November 1999, he immediately went to the crime
Edgardo Bauto (Edgardo) is also a tricycle driver and scene upon the advice of the desk officer. Since Michael
resident of Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City. He was already brought to Fairview Hospital at that time, he
narrated that on 25 November 1999, at around 9:00 in proceeded thereto. Upon arriving at the Fairview
the evening, he was standing at the corner of Sto. Nino Hospital, he was informed that Michael was already
Street and Mactan Street, Brgy. Commonwealth, dead. He then went back to the station and took the
Quezon City, when he heard a female voice shouting statements of the prosecution witnesses.12
"Sinasaksak!" When he glanced at the direction of the
said shouts, he saw, at a distance of about five arms’ Version of the Defense
length, appellant and the latter’s two companions taking Appellant testified that on 25 November 1999, at about
turns in stabbing Michael. One of the appellant’s 9:00 in the evening, he was inside his store located at
companions, whom he described as a toothless male No. 886 Mactan St. Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City,
with a long hair, was the first one to stab Michael. when he heard shouts outside. He peeped through the
Afterwards, the appellant’s other companion, whom he window of his store and saw Danilo and Ronald pulling
described as a male with flat top hair, took the knife from out a certain Jesus de Guzman (Jesus) from the latter’s
the toothless male with a long hair and stabbed Michael. tricycle. Danilo and Ronald punched Jesus but the latter
Subsequently, appellant also took the knife from his retaliated. Thereafter, a rumble ensued. At the height of
companion with flat top hair and stabbed Michael too.7 the brawl, he shouted ‘Hoy! ano ba yan? Tama na yan!
Thereafter, he immediately ran and proceeded to the Itigil na ninyo yan! Awatin na ninyo yan." Minutes later,
house of Michael’s family and informed Michael’s Michael passed by his store and inquired as to what was
parents about the incident. Michael’s parents rushed to happening. He told Michael "Yung tatay mo at si
the crime scene and took Michael to a hospital. The next Santiago (Ronald) pinagtulungan si Rommel." Michael
day, he was accompanied by Danilo and a certain rushed to Danilo and pacified the latter. Edgardo, one of
Ramiro Alfaro to Batasan Hills Police Station 6 where he the participants therein, threw stones at Michael. At this
gave a statement about the incident.8 point, a certain Lemuel Grans Querubin (Lemuel) arrived
and tried to join the fracas. Michael, however, blocked
Danilo, Michael’s father, testified that on 25 November Lemuel’s way. The two wrestled and both of them fell to
1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he was walking on the ground. Moments later, Lemuel stood up. Lemuel
his way home along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and was holding a knife and his hands were bloodied.
Mactan Street, Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City, Michael, on the other hand, was still lying on the ground.
when he saw Michael lying along Sto. Nino Street. He Lemuel then chased Danilo and Ronald but the two were
also saw appellant and the latter’s two male companions able to escape. Afterwards, Danilo, Ronald and five
near Michael’s body. When he was about to approach other persons returned to the scene. Danilo was carrying
them, they immediately ran away. He chased and threw a big bolo while the others were armed with stones and
stones at them. Appellant and his two companions lead pipe. Lemuel and Jesus ran towards the direction of
proceeded to the former’s house and locked the door. Sto. Nino in order to escape.15
He tried to follow them all the way to the house but
appellant’s relatives blocked his way to the door and told Appellant went outside his house to observe the
him to leave. Thereafter, he went back to Michael and situation. Five minutes later, the group of Danilo,
took the latter to Fairview Hospital.9 He was later together with two policemen, proceeded to appellant’s
informed by the doctors that Michael was already dead. house. The policemen forcibly entered appellant’s house
and pushed the latter against the wall. They inquired as
The next day, he went to Batasan Hills Police Station 6 to the whereabouts of Lemuel and Jesus, who happened
and gave a statement about the incident. In an effort to to be appellant’s bus conductor and driver, respectively.
settle the instant case, appellant’s wife and daughter told When they could not find the two, the policemen invited
Danilo that they would sell a bus which they owned and him to the police station. Appellant told them "Bakit ninyo
179
 AB
ako dadalhin? wala naman akong kinalaman diyan." was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack.
From then on, the policemen held appellant in Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then.38
custody.16 In such a helpless situation, it was absolutely impossible
for Michael to escape or to defend himself against the
Antonio was a former bus driver of appellant and a assault of appellant and his two companions. Being
resident of Paranaque City. He narrated that on 25 young and weak, Michael is certainly no match against
November 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he parked adult persons like appellant and his two companions.
a bus owned by appellant’s cousin named Juanito Michael was also outnumbered since he had three
Palmares (Juanito) just beside the appellant’s store. He assailants, and, was unarmed when he was stabbed to
went to appellant’s store and conversed with the latter death. Appellant and his two companions took
who was inside the same store. Thereafter, he saw a advantage of their size, number, and weapon in killing
rumble nearby. He ran and hid inside the parked bus Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and
while appellant stayed inside his store. Later, the methods in exacting the cruel death of Michael by first
participants of the rumble began to stone them. He surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and
alighted from the bus and went inside Juanito’s house. overpowering him. Afterwards, each of them repeatedly
He noticed that appellant was still inside the store. stabbed Michael with a knife at the stomach until the
Subsequently, he saw Lemuel running and carrying a latter fell lifeless to the ground. The stab wounds
knife. He also heard Lemuel saying "Tapos na ang sustained by Michael proved to be fatal as they severely
laban, manahimik na kayo." Thereupon, he saw damaged the latter’s large intestine.39
appellant being apprehended by policemen in civilian
clothes.17 The fact that the place where the incident occurred was
lighted and many people were walking then in different
Issue: directions does not negate treachery. It should be made
Ruling: clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
I. Treachery slightest provocation on his part.40 This is even more
true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor.
In the instant case, treachery was alleged in the
Minor children, who by reason of their tender years,
Information against appellant.37 Moreover, all the
cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an
essential elements/conditions of treachery were
adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.41
established and proven during the trial.
As we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking and
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, death by appellant and his two companions. Further,
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and Michael was a minor at the time of his death while
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself appellant and his two companions were adult persons.
arising from the defense which the offended party might
II. Evident premeditation
make.
With regard to the allegation in the Information that the
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential
killing of Michael was attended by an aggravating
elements/conditions are required in order that treachery
circumstance of evident premeditation, the RTC and the
may be appreciated: (1) The employment of means,
Court of Appeals were correct in disregarding the same
methods or manner of execution that would ensure the
against appellant.
offender’s safety from any retaliatory act on the part of
the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self- The essence of evident premeditation as an aggravating
defense or retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice circumstance is that the execution of the criminal act was
of means, methods or manner of execution. Further, it preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
must always be alleged in the information and proved in resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space
trial in order that it may be validly considered.36 of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.42 It
implies a deliberate planning of the crime before
After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni Kristo
executing it. It must also be shown how and when the
church in his barangay, Michael proceeded home. While
plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it
Michael was casually walking along the corner of Sto.
was carried out.43 Further, there must be proof that the
Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant and his two
accused meditated and reflected on his intention
companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly
between the time when the crime was conceived by him
approached and surrounded Michael. Appellant
and the time it was actually perpetrated.44
positioned himself at the back of Michael while his two
companions stood in front of Michael. In an instant, they In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show that
grabbed the shoulders of Michael and overpowered the appellant and his two companions had previously
latter. One of the appellant’s companions, whom the planned and reflected in killing Michael. When appellant
prosecution witnesses described as a male with long and his two companions saw Michael on that fateful
hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Michael on night, they immediately pounced on him. The thought of
the stomach. Unsatisfied, the appellant’s other killing Michael came into the minds of appellant and his
companion, whom the prosecution witnesses described two companions only when they saw Michael walking on
as a male with flat top hair, took the knife and stabbed the road. Indeed, the killing of Michael was sudden and
Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in unplanned.
front of Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael
on the stomach. When Michael fell on the ground, Penalty: On another point, we agree with the penalty
appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing that the imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the
bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant and Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by
his two companions fled the scene. reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code
provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible
As viewed from the foregoing, the suddenness and penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no
unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser
companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or
and without means of escape. It appears that Michael aggravating circumstance in the present case, and,

180
 AB
treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating release her; but all she got in response were jeers,
circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying abusive and impolite language that the appellants and
circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua threats that the appellants would finish her with their
should be imposed. Thompson and throw acid at her face if she did not keep
quiet. In the meantime, the two men seated on each side
34. People v. Torriefel CA-GR. No. 659-R, 29 of Miss De la Riva started to get busy with her body:
November 1947 Jose put one arm around the complainant and forced his
Facts: lips upon hers, while Aquino placed his arms on her
thighs and lifted her skirt. The girl tried to resist them.
Issue: She continuously implored her captors to release her,
telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the
Ruling:
family and that her mother was alone at home and
Penalty: needed her company because her father was already
dead. Upon learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's
35. People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, 6 February father, Aquino remarked that the situation was much
1971 better than he thought since no one could take revenge
against them. By now Miss De la Riva was beginning to
Facts: The complainant, Magdalena "Maggie" de la
realize the futility of her pleas. She made the sign of the
Riva, was, at the time of the incident, 25 years old and
cross and started to pray. The appellants became angry
single; she graduated from high school in 1958 at
and cursed her. Every now and then Aquino would stand
Maryknoll College and finished the secretarial course in
up and talk in whispers with Pineda, after which the two
1960 at St. Theresa's College. Movie actress by
would exchange knowing glances with Cañal and Jose.
profession, she was receiving P8,000.00 per picture. It
was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and The car reached a dead-end street. Pineda turned the
television shows, where she was paid P800.00 per car around and headed towards Victoria Street. Then the
month in permanent shows, P300.00 per month in live car proceeded to Araneta Avenue, Sta. Mesa Street,
promotional shows, and from P100.00 to P200.00 per Shaw Boulevard, thence to Epifanio de los Santos
appearance as guest in other shows. Avenue. When the car reached Makati, Aquino took a
handkerchief from his pocket and, with the help of Jose,
So it was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of
blindfolded Miss De la Riva. The latter was told not to
June 26, 1967, Miss De la Riva, homeward bound from
shout or else she would be stabbed or shot with a
the ABS Studio on Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving
Thompson. Not long after, the car came to a stop at the
her bantam car accompanied by her maid Helen
Swanky Hotel in Pasay City The blindfolded lady was led
Calderon, who was also at the front seat. Her house was
out of the car to one of the rooms on the second floor of
at No. 48, 12th Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She
the hotel.
was already near her destination when a Pontiac two-
door convertible car with four men aboard (later Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on a
identified as the four appellants) came abreast of her car bed. Her blindfold was removed. She saw Pineda and
and tried to bump it. She stepped on her brakes to avoid Aquino standing in front of her, and Jose and Cañal
a collision, and then pressed on the gas and swerved sitting beside her, all of them smiling meaningfully.
her car to the left, at which moment she was already in Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka para sa
front of her house gate; but because the driver of the amin." The other three expressed their approval and
other car (Basilio Pineda, Jr.) also accelerated his ordered Miss De la Riva to disrobe. The complainant
speed, the two cars almost collided for the second time. ignored the command. One of the appellants suggested
This prompted Miss De la Riva, who was justifiably putting off the light so that the complainant would not be
annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith, Pineda stopped ashamed. The idea, however, was rejected by the
the car which he was driving, jumped out of it and rushed others, who said that it would be more pleasurable for
towards her. them if the light was on. Miss De la Riva was told to
remove her stocking in order, according to them, to
The girl became so frightened at this turn of events that
make the proceedings more exciting. Reluctantly, she
she tooted the horn of her car continuously. Undaunted,
did as directed, but so slowly did she proceed with the
Pineda opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and
assigned task that the appellants cursed her and
grabbed the lady's left arm.lâwphî1.ñèt The girl held on
threatened her again with the Thompson and the
tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and, together with
acid.lâwphî1.ñèt They started pushing Miss De la Riva
her maid, started to scream. Her strength, however,
around. One of them pulled down the zipper of her
proved no match to that of Pineda, who succeeded in
dress; another unhooked her brassiere. She held on
pulling her out of her car. Seeing her mistress'
tightly to her dress to prevent it from being pulled down,
predicament, the maid jumped out of the car and took
but her efforts were in vain: her dress, together with her
hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an effort to free her
brassiere, fell on the floor.
from Pineda's grip. The latter, however, was able to drag
Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac convertible car, The complainant was now completely naked before the
whose motor was all the while running. four men, who were kneeling in front of her and feasting
their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal lasted for
When Miss De la Riva, who was being pulled by Pineda,
about ten minutes, during which the complainant, in all
was very near the Pontiac car, the three men inside
her nakedness, was asked twice or thrice to turn around.
started to assist their friend: one of them held her by the
Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with
neck, while the two others held her arms and legs. All
his other companions. The complainant tried to look for a
three were now pulling Miss De la Riva inside the car.
blanket with which to cover herself, but she could not
Before she was completely in, appellant Pineda jumped
find one.
unto the driver's seat and sped away in the direction of
Broadway Street. The maid was left behind. Very soon, Jose reentered the room and began
undressing himself. Miss De la Riva, who was sitting on
The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose
the bed trying to cover her bareness with her hands,
and Edgardo Aquino at the back seat; Basilio Pineda, Jr.
implored him to ask his friends to release her. Instead of
was at the wheel, while Rogelio Cañal was seated
answering her, he pushed her backward and pinned her
beside him. Miss De la Riva entreated the appellants to
down on the bed. Miss De la Riva and Jose struggled
181
 AB
against each other; and because the complainant was mother, her brother-in-law Ben Suba, as well as several
putting up stiff resistance, Jose cursed her and hit her PC officers, policemen and reporters, were at the house.
several times on the stomach and other parts of the Upon seeing her mother, the complainant ran toward her
body. The complainant crossed her legs tightly, but her and said, "Mommy, Mommy, I have been raped. All four
attacker was able to force them open. Jose succeeded in of them raped me." The mother brought her daughter
having carnal knowledge of the complainant. He then left upstairs. Upon her mother's instruction, the complainant
the room. immediately took a bath and a douche. The older woman
also instructed her daughter to douche himself two or
The other three took their turns. Aquino entered the three times daily with a strong solution to prevent
room next. A struggle ensued between him and Miss De infection and pregnancy. The family doctor, who was
la Riva during which he hit, her on different parts of the afterwards summoned, treated the complainant for
body. Like Jose, Aquino succeeded in abusing the external physical injuries. The doctor was not, however,
complainant. The girl was now in a state of shock. told about the sexual assaults. Neither was Pat. Pablo
Aquino called the others into the room. They poured Pascual, the police officer who had been sent by the
water on her face and slapped her to revive her. desk officer, Sgt. Dimla, to the De la Riva residence
Afterwards, three of the accused left the room, leaving when the latter received from a mobile patrol a report of
Pineda and the complainant After some struggle during the snatching. When Miss De la Riva arrived home from
which Pineda hit her, the former succeeded in forcing his her harrowing experience, Pat. Pascual attempted to
carnal desire on the latter. When the complainant went question her, but Ben Suba requested him to postpone
into a state of shock for the second time, the three other the interrogation until she could be ready for it. At that
men went into the room again poured water on the time, mother and daughter were still undecided on what
complainant's face and slapped her several times. The to do.
complainant heard them say that they had to revive her
so she would know what was happening. Jose, Aquino On the afternoon of June 28, 1967, the complainant
and Pineda then left the room. It was now appellant family gathered to discuss what steps, if any, should be
Canal's turn. There was a struggle between him and taken. After some agonizing moments, a decision was
Miss De la Riva. Like the other three appellants before reached: the authorities had to be informed.
him, he hit the complainant on different parts of the body
and succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her. Issue: Whether or not there was ignominy in this case.

Mention must be made of the fact that while each of Ruling: There is no doubt at all that the forcible
mention must be made the four appellants was abduction of the complainant from in front of her house
struggling with the complainant, the other three were in Quezon City, was a necessary if not indispensable
outside the room, just behind the door, threatening the means which enabled them to commit the various and
complainant with acid and telling her to give in because the successive acts of rape upon her person. It bears
she could not, after all, escape what with their presence. noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was
being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had
After the appellants had been through with the sexual already been consummated, so that each of the three
carnage, they gave Miss De la Riva her clothes, told her succeeding (crimes of the same nature cannot legally be
to get dressed and put on her stockings, and to wash her considered as still connected with the abduction — in
face and comb her hair, to give the impression that other words, they should be detached from, and
nothing had happened to her. They told her to tell her considered independently of, that of forcible abduction
mother that she was mistaken by a group of men for a and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed
hostess, and that when the group found out that she was with the latter.
a movie actress, she was released without being
harmed. She was warned not to inform the police; for if The commission of said crimes was attended with the
she did and they were apprehended, they would simply following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime,
post bail and later hunt her up and disfigure her face with appellants having purposely sought such circumstance
acid. The appellants then blindfolded Miss De la Riva to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of
again and led her down from the hotel room. Because superior strength, the crime having been committed by
she was stumbling, she had to be carried into the car. the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf.
Inside the car, a appellant Jose held her head down on People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113); (c)
his lap, and kept it in that position during the trip, to ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the
prevent her from being seen by others. complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness
for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a
Meanwhile, the four appellants were discussing the circumstance which tended to make the effects of the
question of where to drop Miss De la Riva. They finally crime more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor vehicle.
decided on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not
far from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 Appellant Pineda should, however, be credited with the
to make it appear, according to them, that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a
complainant had just come from the studio. Pineda factor which does not in the least affect the nature of the
asked Jose to alight and call a taxicab, but to choose proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there
one which did not come from a well-known company. would still be three aggravating circumstances
Jose did as requested, letting several taxicabs pass by remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise be
before flagging a UBL taxicab. After they warned again made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of
Miss De la Riva not to inform anyone of what had these three simple crimes of rape.
happened to her, appellant Canal accompanied her to 36. People v. Butler, G.R. No. L-50276, 27 January
the taxicab. The time was a little past 6:00 o'clock. When 1983
Miss De la Riva was already inside the cab and alone
with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she broke down and Facts: On August 7, 1975, at about 10:30 p.m.,
cried. She kept asking the driver if a car was following accused-appellant Michael Butler and the victim,
them; and each time the driver answered her in the Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were together at
negative. Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City. They were seen
together by Lilia Paz, and entertainer and friend of the
It was 6:30 o'clock — or some two hours after the victim, who claimed to have had a small conversation
abduction — when Miss De la Riva reached home. Her with the accused, and by one Rosemarie Juarez, also a
182
 AB
friend of the victim. At about 1:00 of the same evening, dangerous to me so I grabbed her, and we started
the accused and the victim left the said wrestling on the bed. She grabbed me by the throat and I
restaurant, 1 after the latter invited Rosemarie Juarez to picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was sitting on the
come to her house that night. bedside stand and I hit her in the head. She fell flat on
her face." Although the figurine was found broken beside
Emelita Pasco, the housemaid of the victim, testified her head, the medical report, however, do not show any
that, at about 11:30 p.m. or so of August 7, 1975, her injury or fracture of the skull and no sign of intracranial
mistress (Gina Barrios) came home with the accused- hemorrhage.
appellant. As soon as she opened the door for them, the
victim and accused-appellant immediately entered the III. Scoffing at the corpse of the victim
victim's bedroom. Shortly thereafter, the victim left her
bedroom holding an Id card and a piece of paper, and on We, however, find and sustain the finding of the lower
the piece of paper, the victim purportedly wrote the court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or
following words: MICHAEL J. BUTLER, 44252-8519 scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies against
USS HANCOCK. the accused since it is established that he mocked or
outraged at the person or corpse of his victim by having
Pasco testified that the victim said she was copying the an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead.
name of the accused because she knew he would not be
going back to her. Then she rushed back to her bedroom The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and
after instructing Pasco to wake her up the following also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as
morning. 2 Before retiring, however, the victim's friend, testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas, the medico-legal
Rosemarie Juarez, came to the former's house and after officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory
having a small conversation, also left. Report, Exhibit "B1 ", clearly established the coitus after
death. This act of the accused in having anal intercourse
The following day, August 8, 1975, at about 4:00 a.m., with the woman after killing her is, undoubtedly, an
Pasco rose to wake her mistress as instructed. She outrage at her corpse.
knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying
on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with It is true as maintained by the defense that the
legs spread apart, with a broken figurine beside her aggravating circumstance of outraging at the corpse of
head.  the victim is not alleged in the information and that the
lower court found it had been proved but its contention
Dr. Roxas later testified that anal intercourse was had that the said aggravating circumstance should not have
with the victim after her death as indicated by the partly been appreciated against the accused is without merit.
opened anus and the presence of spermatozoa in it. He And this is so because the rule is that a generic
testified that the anus would have automatically and aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information
completely closed had the intercourse occurred, while may be proven during the trial over the objection of the
the victim was still alive. He also categorically testified defense and may be appreciated in imposing the,
that the victim died of asphyxia due to suffocation when penalty (People vs. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil. 597).
extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it Aggravating circumstances not alleged in the information
downward, thereby pressing her nose and mouth against but proven during the trial serve only to aid the court in
the mattress.6 fixing the limits of the penalty but do not change the
character of the offense. (People vs. Collado 60 Phil.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the 610, 614; People vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 368; People vs.
accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by abuse Vega, 31 Phil. 450; People vs. Domondon, 64 Phil. 729).
of superior strength, with aggravating circumstances of
treachery and scoffing at the corpse of the victim. 37. People v. Saylan, G.R. No. L-36941, 29 June 1984

Ruling: Facts: The complaining witness, Eutropia A. Agno, a

married woman and a resident of Barrio Malinao,
I. Abuse of superior strength Gingoog City, was a classroom teacher of the Malinao
This Court holds that there was an abuse of superior Elementary School (pp. 2, 3, tsn., Feb. 22, 1973).
strength attending the commission of the crime. In the afternoon of January 23, 1971, Eutropia went to
It is not only the notorious advantage of height that the the public market in Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs for
accused had over his hapless victim, he being 6 feet tall her family and thereafter, she proceeded to the store of
and weighing 155 lbs. while the girl was only 4 ft 11 her mother to fetch her five-year old daughter Nilsonita
inches tall, but also fits strength which he wielded in (p. 4, tsn., Id.). On their way home, Eutropia and
striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving Nilsonita boarded a passenger jeepney and while inside
her head and pressing her mouth and nose against the the vehicle she (Eutropia) noticed that the other
bed mattress, which pressure must have been very passengers were Rudy Gonzales, a grade I pupil of the
strong and powerful to suffocate her to death and without Malinao Elementary School, the appellant, Rafael
risk to himself in any manner or mode whatsoever that Saylan, and a couple whom she did not know (pp, 5, 6,
she may have taken to defend herself or retaliate since tsn., Id.). The jeepney went only as far as Malinas citrus
she was already struck and helpless on the bed, that farm because the road to Barrio Malinao was not
convinced us to find and rule that the crime committed is passable by vehicles (p. 5, tsn., Id.). It was almost 6:30
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of o'clock in the evening when the jeepney arrived at the
superior strength. Malinas citrus farm and so all the passengers alighted
and had to walk all the way to Barrio Malinao which was
II. Treachery about three and a half kilometers away (p. 5, tsn., Id.).
After walking some distance and upon reaching a
Evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show
junction, the couple separated from the group and took
clearly and prove distinctly that treachery attended the
the road leading to their house while Eutropia's group
commission of the crime since there was no eyewitness
took the opposite road (p. 9, tsn., Id.).lwphl@itç The
account of the killing.
appellant, however, joined the group of Eutropia and
The extra-judicial confession of the accused merely when they reached the place where the road was plain,
stated, thus: "I thought she was going to do something appellant who was then walking side by side with
Eutropia suddenly pulled out a dagger about eight inches
183
 AB
long and pointing it at the latter said, "Do not shout, Id.). She then asked him whether the appellant was stin
Nang, I will kill you!" (pp. 11, 12, tsn., Id.). At this around, and in reply, he told her that appellant had
juncture, appellant placed his right arm around the neck already left (p. 37, tsn., Id.). Eutropia then told her
of Eutropia with the dagger pointed at her left breast (p. husband that she was raped by the appellant (p. 37, tsn.,
12, tsn., Id.), after which he dragged Eutropia at some Id.). Upon learning of the dastardly act committed by the
distance. When they reached the junction of the trail for appellant, he advised his wife to submit herself to a
men and a trail for carabaos, he ordered everybody to medical examination (p. 37, tsn., Id.).
stop and told the children (Nilsonita and Rudy Gonzales)
to stay behind and threatened to kill them if they Issue:
persisted in following them (pp. 17, 18, tsn., Id.). Ruling:
Thereafter, appellant again dragged Eutropia by her
hand and brought her towards a creek near a coconut I. Abuse of superior strength
tree which was about five meters away from where
The trial court disregarded superiority because it "is
Nilsonita and Rudy Gonzales were (pp. 14, 15, 16, tsn.,
inherent in the crime of rape or is absorbed in the
Id.).lwphl@itç The appellant then ordered Eutropia to
element of force."
remove her panty which she refused at first, but
appellant threatened to kill her, so she removed her II. Nighttime
panty after which appellant ordered her to lie down (pp.
18, 19, tsn., Id.). Subsequently, appellant placed himself It also did not consider nocturnity "there being no
on top of the victim and inserted his penis into her vagina evidence that the accused purposely sought it to
and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her by facilitate the commission of this rape."
moving his buttocks up and down (pp. 20,21, tsn., Id.).
III. Uninhabited place (despoblado)
After the first sexual act, appellant ordered Eutropia to
Despoblado was present according to the trial court
standup which the latter helplessly and grudgingly
because: "The accused dragged the offended party, at
followed (p. 23, tsn., Id.). Appellant again inserted his
the point of a dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10
penis into her vagina and then performed a push and
meters from the junction, but 40 to 50 meters below to
puli movement (pp. 23, 24, 25, tsn., Id.). Not satisfied
better attain his purpose without interference, and to
with the second intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia
better secure himself from detection and punishment.
to lie down again preparatory to a third intercourse (p.
26, tsn., Id.). Appellant again performed the sexual act Even the junction where the two children were left is
with her (pp. 26, 27, tsn., Id.). already 400 meters from the nearest house. While there
maybe occasional passersby, this does not destroy its
After the third intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia to
being an uninhabited place.
stand up and then he bent her body downwards with her
hands and knees resting on the ground (p. 28, tsn., Id.). We hold that the trial court for the reasons stated
When the latter was already in this position, appellant correctly held that the crime was committed in an
then placed himself behind her, inserted his penis into uninhabited place.
her vagina and executed a push and puli movement in
the dog's way of sexual intercourse (pp. 27, 28, tsn., Id.) IV. Ignominy

After performing this uncommon way of sexual There was ignominy because the appellant used not only
intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia to he down again the missionary position, i.e. male supenor female
which the latter reluctantly obeyed because appellant's inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do" i.e.,
dagger was always pointed at her and thereafter he had entry from behind.
carnal knowledge of her for the fifth time (pp. 29, 30,
The appellant claims there was no ignominy because
tsn., Id.).
"The studies of many experts in the matter have shown
After the fifth intercourse, and after satisfying his sexual that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and
lust, appellant asked Eutropia if she will tell her husband often been resorted to by couples in the act of
what he did to her and the latter answered, "I will not tell" copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual
(p. 31, tsn., Id.). But she only said this so that appellant act is performed by consenting partners but not
would let her go home (p. 33, tsn., Id.). otherwise.

Afterwards, Eutropia and appellant returned to the place V. Reiteracion

where the children were left and upon arriving thereat,
Trial court also held that "there is no reiteracion because
they found Nilsonita (Eutropia's daughter) asleep with
one of the offenses, namely Robbery in Band, for which
Rudy seated dozing beside her (pp. 32, 33, tsn., Id.).
the accused has been penal was committed after the
Nilsonita who was sleeping was carried by the appellant
commission of this rape case, and the penalty imposed
and then they all proceeded to Malinao (pp. 33, 34, tsn.,
on the other offense of Frustrated Homicide, is lighter
Id.).
than the penalty for rape."
After walking some distance, Eutropia saw the house of
VI. Disregard of rank
her friend "Ben" and upon approaching the said house,
she shouted, "Ben, Ben, please give me hot water" (p. Although not alleged in the complaint, the trial court
34, tsn., Id.). Upon hearing her voice, Ben, who was still stated that the offense was aggravated by disregard of
awake at the time, opened the door of his house and rank because it was a fact known to the appellant that
allowed Eutropia to come up (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Eutropia Mrs. Agno was a school teacher.
immediately went upstairs and went straight to the room
of Ben as she was feeling very bad (p. 34, tsn., Id.). The appellant claims that this circumstance cannot be
Appellant, who was then carrying Nilsonita and Rudy assigned to him because there was no deliberate intent
Gonzales, were also allowed to go upstairs (p. 35, tsn., to offend or insult the rank of Mrs. Agno. The Solicitor
Id.). Meanwhile, Eutropia requested Ben to fetch her General agrees with the appellant for the same reason.
husband (p. 35, tsn., Id.). Penalty: The judgment of the trial court is in accordance
When Eutropia woke up between 9:00 and 10:00 o'clock with the facts and the law but it cannot be affirmed
that evening, her husband was already there (p. 36, tsn.,
184
 AB
completely because of the lack of the necessary number followed them on board an XLT Van. Juditha alighted
of votes. near the house of accused-appellant while her
companions waited for her and accused-appellant along
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is modified in the highway. When she arrived at accused-appellant's
the sense that the appellant shall suffer the penalty of place, he was already waiting for her outside the store
reclusion perpetua instead of death and the indemnity to nearby. They went inside his house and came out twenty
be paid to the offended party is increased to P20,000.00. (20) minutes later. They boarded a passenger bus while
Costs against the appellant. SPO1 Bautista and his companions trailed them. When
38. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, 27 April 2000, the bus reached the corner of Forest Hill Subdivision,
Gulod, Novaliches, it slowed down because of the traffic
Facts: The evidence for the prosecution was based thus making it easier for SPO1 Bautista and his
principally on the testimony of complaining witness companions to board the bus. Upon seeing her brother
Juditha M. Bautista. According to her, on 2 June 1997 at and his companions, Juditha motioned to them. They
9:00 o'clock in the evening she was on her way home immediately approached accused-appellant and boxed
from a visit to her cousin Cristina Mansilongan in him before they could arrest him. The other passengers
Novaliches, Quezon City; when she passed the dark of the bus joined in hitting accused-appellant. This
alley in her cousin's compound she was accosted by caused a commotion in the bus. Some policemen who
someone, later identified as accused-appellant Fernando were in the barangay hall across the street saw the
L. Sultan, who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck disturbance. They boarded the bus to find out what
and announcing it was a "hold-up." He grabbed her and happened. Then they assisted in facilitating the arrest of
brought her to a house along the alley which turned out accused-appellant and brought him to the barangay hall.
to be his. Once inside the house, he made her sit down. He was later on transferred to the police headquarters
He offered her a drink; she refused it. Then he started for further interrogation.
divesting her of her watch, ring, earrings, and necklace
the values of which are now reflected in the Decision of Issue:
the court a quo, and her cash of P130.00. After taking Ruling:
her valuables, he started kissing her on the lips and
cheeks. As if to discourage him from making further I. Employment of force
sexual advances, she told him that she was married with
two (2) children but accused-appellant was not Accused-appellant might not have employed force in
dissuaded from pursuing his intentions. While pointing committing the rape but he definitely used intimidation
an ice pick at her he ordered her to undress. She which was sufficient to make complainant submit herself
acceded for fear that he would kill her as she was under to him against her will for fear of life and personal safety.
constant threat. After she had completely undressed, Accused-appellant grabbed her and dragged her to his
accused-appellant ordered her to lie down on the floor. house. He was armed with an ice pick and threatened to
He then kissed her again from head down. Still she could kill her with it if she did not follow his wishes. She was
not resist him because of fear. He went on top of her, naturally intimidated and her intimidation started from
held her two (2) hands on the level of her head, spread that moment on, and subsisted in her mind when the
her thighs and inserted his penis into her vagina. The rape was started until its consummation. Intimidation is
coital encounter lasted for ten (10) to fifteen (15) subjective so it must be viewed in the light of the victim's
minutes.2 perception and judgment at the time of the commission
After satisfying his lust, he ordered her to put on her bra of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule. It is
and panty, tied her hands and went out of the room to enough that it produces fear, as in the present case, fear
smoke. After ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, he came that if the complainant does not yield to the bestial
back, untied her, and once again with threat and demands of accused-appellant something would happen
intimidation sexually abused her. Thereafter, he tied her to her at that moment or even thereafter.
hands to a protruding piece of wood in the room and Thus, it is irrelevant that she was not certain when cross-
held her in his arms. She cried. He told her that he loved examined that accused-appellant was armed with an ice
her and that he would answer for what he had done to pick when the rape commenced; it was enough that he
her. They talked until noon the following day without was holding something that looked like an ice pick which
sleeping.3 engendered fear in her. With fear instilled in her mind, it
In her effort to release herself from his clutches she is understandable that she did not offer any resistance
"agreed" to elope with him. Perhaps convinced that she since any attempt to do so would only be futile. Such
was going to run away with him, he allowed her to go failure on her part should not be taken to mean consent
home at noon to get her things. She was then staying so as to make her a willing participant in the sexual
with her cousin Nita del Rosario, at No. 9 Sta. Eleuteria confrontation.
Street, Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City. He even Penalty: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo
accompanied her to the highway to get a ride home.4 finding accused-appellant FERNANDO SULTAN Y
When Juditha arrived home she saw her sister Antonette LATO GUILTY of the special complex crime of robbery
in the house. She was not actually residing there but with rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to
went there only that day. Juditha lost no time in narrating pay Juditha M. Bautista P50,000.00 for moral damages,
her harrowing experience to her sister. Immediately P5,180.00 for actual damages representing the value of
Antonette called her brother SPO1 Fernando M. Bautista the personal properties plus the cash amount of P130.00
who resides in Bulacan.5 SPO1 Bautista arrived at taken from her is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
ground 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and was told that the amount of P50,000.00 be added as civil
about what happened.6 He then advised Juditha to go indemnity in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.
back to the house of accused-appellant for the "planned Costs against accused-appellant.
elopement" so that he and his two (2) companions 7 39. People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19
could stage an arrest.8 September 2000
On their way to the house of accused-appellant, Juditha Facts:
rode in a passenger jeep with her sister Antonette and
cousin Nita while her brother and his two (2) companions Version of the Prosecution
185
 AB
"At 1:45 p.m. of September 24, 1997, PO3 Allan Marcos with twenty (20) live ammunition (Exh. G-3) and another
Obut filed an application for the issuance of a search with twenty-one (21) live ammunition (Exh. G-4). He
warrant against appellant, his wife and some John Does likewise saw three (3) M16 rifle magazines (Exh. G-2) in
(Exh. C). After the search warrant was issued about 2:30 a corner at the second floor (TSN, March 5, 1998, pp.
p.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted inside 23-32, 53-57).
the office of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the
Zamboanga City Police Office in connection with the "After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant’s
service of the search warrant. The briefing was house, Rivera, Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed
conducted by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Chief of the Anti- and entered the house. After identifying themselves as
Vice/Narcotics Unit. During the briefing, PO3 Renato members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit, Obut
Dela Peña was assigned as presentor of the warrant. presented to the old women a copy of the search
SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos and PO3 Enrique Rivera warrant. Dela Peña and Rivera then searched
were designated to conduct the search. Other policemen appellant’s room on the ground floor in the presence of
were assigned as perimeter guards (TSN, March 3, Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 41-
1998, pp. 33-36). 43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh. J) with fifty
(50) folded aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-50),
"After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or
headed by Police Superintendent Edwin Soledad ‘shabu’.
proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife at Rio
Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN, March 4, "Other items were found during the search, namely,
1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before they could assorted coins in different denominations (Exh. W; TSN,
reach appellant’s house, three (3) persons sitting at a April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25), one (1) homemade .38 caliber
nearby store ran towards the house shouting, ‘[P]olice, revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live [ammunition], one (1)
raid, raid’ (Ibid., March 3, 1998, pp. 41, 43-44; April 23, M79 single rifle with [a] pouch containing five (5) empty
1998, p. 4). When the policemen were about ten (10) shells of an M79 rifle (Exh. B-4), and one (1) empty shell
meters from the main gate of the house, they were met of an M14 rifle (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).
by a rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor "Rino Bartolome Locson was an informer of the Anti-
of the house. There was also gunfire at the back of the Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga Police. [O]n the
house (Ibid., March 5, 1998, pp. 14-16). morning of September 24, 1997, he was instructed by
"SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and SPO2 Gaganting to go to appellant’s house to buy
PO3 Dela Peña who were with the first group of ‘shabu.’ Locson knew appellant as a seller of ‘shabu’
policemen saw appellant fire an M14 rifle towards them. (TSN, April 22, 1998, p. 5) and had been to appellant’s
They all knew appellant. When they were fired upon, the house about fifteen (15) times before. He went to Rio
group, together with SPO2 Gaganting, PO3 Obut and Hondo and arrived at appellant’s house at 3:20 p.m. He
Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at the concrete bought P300.00 worth of ‘shabu’ from appellant. The
fence to observe the movements at the second floor of latter got three (3) decks of shabu from his waist bag.
the house while other policemen surrounded the house Appellant instructed Locson to go behind the curtain
(Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-51). where there was a table. There were six (6) persons
already smoking. There was a lighted kerosene lamp
"In front of the house was an extension building made of a medicine bottle placed on the table. They
connected to the concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-59, asked Locson to smoke ‘shabu’ and Locson obliged. He
73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol, Lacastesantos, Gregorio, placed the three (3) decks of ‘shabu’ he bought on the
and Obut entered the door of the extension building. table (Ibid., pp. 8-15).
Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of the house.
The other members of the team then entered. "While they were smoking ‘shabu,’ Locson heard gunfire
Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered the house through coming from appellant’s house. They all stood and
the main door and went inside the sala of the ground entered appellant’s compound but were instructed to
floor while other policemen surrounded the house. Two pass [through] the other side. They met appellant at the
(2) old women were in the sala together with a young girl back of his house. Appellant told them to escape
and three (3) children. One of the old women took the ‘because the police are already here.’ They scampered
children to the second floor while the young girl and ‘ran away because there were already shots.’
remained seated at the corner (Ibid., pp. 19-21). Locson jumped over the fence and ran towards the
seashore. Upon reaching a place near the Fisheries
"Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second School, he took a tricycle and went home (Ibid., pp. 17-
floor where they earlier saw appellant firing an M14 rifle 19).
at them through the window. While they were going
upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. He went "The following day, September 25, 1997, he went to the
inside the bedroom and, after breaking and removing the police station and executed an affidavit (Exh. M)
jalousies, jumped from the window to the roof of a narrating what transpired at appellant’s house [o]n the
neighboring house. Seeing this, Mirasol rushed afternoon of September 24, 1997.
downstairs and asked help from the other members of Version of the Defense
the raiding team to arrest appellant. Lacastesantos went
to the second floor and shouted to the policemen outside "Accused Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’,
not to fire in the direction of the second floor because 30 years old, married, gave his occupation as
there were children. Mirasol and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya ‘smuggling’ (tsn, p. 2, May 4, 1998). He used to go to
arrested appellant at the back of his house after a brief Labuan in Malaysia and bring cigarettes to the
chase (Ibid., pp. 21-23). Philippines without paying taxes (tsn, pp. 40-41, id). He
said that his true name [was] Abdul Nasser Abdurakman
"At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle and that Warpan or Walpan Ladjaalam [was] only his
(Exh. B-3) with magazine on top of the sofa at the sala ‘alias’. However, he admitted that more people kn[e]w
on the second floor (Ibid., P. 27). The rifle bore Serial him as Walpan Ladjaalam rather than Abdul Nasser
No. 1555225. He removed the magazine from the rifle Abdurakman (tsn. pp. 39-40; 46-47, id). He testified that
and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He counted [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, when he was
seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the magazine. He arrested by the police, he was sleeping in the house of
saw two (2) more M14 rifle magazines on the sofa, one Dandao, a relative of his wife. He was alone. He slept in
186
 AB
Dandao’s house and not in his house because they ha[d] charges were filed against the one responsible for their
‘a sort of a conference’ as Dandao’s daughter was death (tsn, pp. 30-33- May 4, 1998).
leaving for Saudi Arabia. He noticed the presence of
policemen in his neighborhood at Aplaya, Rio Hondo Issue:
when he heard shots. He woke up and went out of the Ruling:
house and that was the time that he was arrested. He
said he was arrested ‘xxx [at] the other side of my house; I. Illegal possession of firearms as
at the other side of the fence where I was sleeping. xxx. aggravating circumstance
At the back of my house’ (tsn, p. 7, id.). He does not
A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed
know who arrested him ‘considering that the one who
firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
arrested me does not have nameplate.’ He was arrested
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession
by four (4) persons. Not one of those who arrested him
of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or
testified in Court. He was handcuffed and placed inside a
homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely
jeep parked at Rio Hondo Elementary School. According
an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
to him, he did not fire a gun at the policemen from [t]he
Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide
second floor of his house. He said the ‘policemen’ [were]
was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be
‘the one[s] who fire[d] at us’ (tsn, p. 5, id.). If he fired a
held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
gun at the policemen for sure they [would] die ‘[b]ecause
the door is very near x x x the vicinity of my house’. He Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of
does not own the M14 rifle (Exh. ‘B-3’) which according the accused.62 In this case, the plain meaning of RA
to policemen, he used in firing at them. The gun does not 8294’s simple language is most favorable to herein
belong to him. He does not have a gun like that (tsn, p. appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for
15, id.). A policeman also owns an M14 rifle but he does the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative
not know the policeman (tsn, pp. 16-17, id). He said that intent to favor the accused.63 Accordingly, appellant
the M79 rifle (Exh. ‘B-4’), the three (3) empty M16 rifle cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal
magazines (Exh. ‘G’; ‘G-1’ to ‘G-2’), the two (2) M14 possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted
magazines with live ammunition (Exh. ‘G-3’; ‘G-4’); the homicide.
two (2) caliber .38 revolvers (Exhs. ‘B-1’; ‘B-2’), the fifty
(50) aluminum foils each containing shabu (Exhs. ‘J-1’ to Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault
‘J-50’) placed inside a pencil case (Exh. ‘J’, the assorted and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of
coins placed inside a blue bag (Exh. ‘W’) and the white firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
crystalline stone (Exh. ‘K’) all do not belong to him. He circumstance.
said that the policemen just produced those things as
1âwphi1 When the crime was committed on September
their evidence. The firearms do not belong to him. They
24, 1997, the original language of PD 1866 had already
were brought by the policemen (tsn, p. 43, May 4, 1998).
been expressly superseded by RA 8294 which took
Regarding the blue bag containing assorted coins, he
effect on July 6, 1997.64 In other words, no longer in
said: ‘that is not ours, I think this (is) theirs, xxx they just
existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866, which
brought that as their evidence’ (tsn, pp. 15-24, id.)
justified a conviction for illegal possession of firearms
"Walpan Ladjaalam declared there were occupants who separate from any other crime. It was replaced by RA
were renting his extension house. He affirmed that he 8294 which, among other amendments to PD 1866,
owns that house. Four (4) persons were staying in the contained the specific proviso that "no other crime was
extension house. He could only recognize the husband committed."
whose name is Momoy. They are from Jolo. They left the
Furthermore, the OSG’s reliance on People v. Jayson65
place already because they were afraid when the police
is misplaced. True, this Court sustained the conviction of
raided the place. (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 4, 1998). He does
appellant for illegal possession of firearms, although he
not know prosecution witness Rino Locson y Bartolome.
had also committed homicide. We explained, however,
Although Locson recognized him, in his case he does
that "the criminal case for homicide [was] not before us
not know Locson and he does not recognize him (tsn,
for consideration."
p.11, id). He did not sell anything to Locson and did not
entertain him. He is not selling shabu but he knows ‘for a Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial
fact that there are plenty of person who are engaged in court. We find no justification for limiting the proviso in
selling shabu in that place’, in that area known as the second paragraph to murder and homicide. The law
Aplaya, Rio Hondo. One of them is Hadji Agbi (tsn, is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal
pp.11-14, id). possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime
was committed by the person arrested." If the intention
"After his arrest Walpan Ladjaalam was brought to the
of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to
police station where he stayed for one day and one night
homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so,
before he was transferred to the City jail. While at the
as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law
police station, he was not able to take a bath. He
does not distinguish, neither should we.
smokes two packs of cigarette a day. While he was at
the police station, he smoked [a] cigarette given to him Penalty: The Court is aware that this ruling effectively
by his younger sister. He lighted the cigarettes with [a] exonerates appellant of illegal possession of an M-14
match. From the police station, he was brought to the rifle, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier
PNP Regional Office at R.T. Lim Boulevard where he than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the first
was subject to paraffin examination (tsn, pp. 24-26, May is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision
4, 1998). correccional. Indeed, the accused may evade conviction
for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons
"During the raid conducted on his house, his cousin Boy
in committing an even lighter offense,66 like alarm and
Ladjaalam, Ating Sapadi, and Jecar (Sikkal) Usman, the
scandal67 or slight physical injuries,68 both of which are
younger brother of his wife were killed. Walpan
punishable by arresto menor.69 This consequence,
Ladjaalam said that he saw that ‘it was the policeman
however, necessarily arises from the language of RA
who shot them[,] only I do not know his name." They
8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review.
were killed at the back of his house. He said that no
Any perception that the result reached here appears
unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the
187
 AB
Court has no discretion to give statutes a new meaning citing Agote v. Lorenzo,23 People v. Ladjaalam,24 and
detached from the manifest intendment and language of other similar cases,25 contends that the mere filing of an
the legislature. Our task is constitutionally confined only information for gun ban violation against him necessarily
to applying the law and jurisprudence70 to the proven bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearm.
facts, and we have done so in this case. The Solicitor General contends otherwise on the basis of
Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses and People v. Valde.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those
found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault and enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal
multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon, possession of firearm should be quashed because the
for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months to 6 illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried
years of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug together with such other offense, either considered as an
den, for which he was correctly sentenced by the trial aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,40 or
court to reclusion perpetua. Costs against appellant. absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d’etat.41 Conversely, when
40. Celino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170562, 29 the other offense involved is not one of those
June 2007 enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for
Facts: Two separate informations were filed before the illegal possession of firearm should continue to be
RTC of Roxas City charging petitioner with violation of prosecuted.
Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun Finally, as a general rule, the remedy of an accused from
ban),3 and Section 1, Paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. the denial of his motion to quash is for him to go to trial
(R.A.) 82944 (illegal possession of firearm), as follows: on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to
appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by
Criminal Case No. C-137-04 law.42 Although the special civil action for certiorari may
be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of
That on or about the 12th day of May, 2004, in the City discretion,43 the appellate court correctly dismissed the
of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this petition as that vitiating error is not attendant in the
Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there present case.
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly carry outside of his
residence an armalite rifle colt M16 with serial number
3210606 with two (2) long magazines each loaded with ANALOGOUS
thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same caliber during
the election period – December 15, 2005 to June 9, 2004 CIRCUMSTANCES
– without first having obtained the proper authority in
writing from the Commission on Elections, Manila, 1. People vs. Atop
Philippines.
Facts:

Criminal Case No. C-138-04 Version of the Prosecution

That on or about the 12th day of May, 2004, in the City Private complainant Regina Guafin, told the court that
of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this she is a granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the
Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there accused Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession said Trinidad Atop [sic]. Her mother is a daughter of said
and control one (1) armalite rifle colt M16 with serial Trinidad Atop [sic] and lives in Pangasinan. She is an
number 3210606 with two (2) long magazines each illegitimate child and she does not even know her father.
loaded with thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same Since her early childhood she stayed with her
caliber without first having obtained the proper license or grandmother Trinidad Atop [sic] and the accused at
necessary permit to possess the said firearm. Barangay Santa Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte. Sometime in
1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused
Upon arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-138-04, started having lustful desire on her. The accused then
petitioner pleaded not guilty to the gun ban violation inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her
charge.7 grandmother about this but her grandmother did not
believe her. She was then told by her grandmother,
Prior to his arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-137-04, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was
petitioner filed a Motion to Quash8 contending that he just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued
"cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms staying with her grandmother and her common law
x x x if he was also charged of having committed another
husband Alejandro Atop, the herein accused.
crime of [sic] violating the Comelec gun ban under the
same set of facts x x x."9 On October 9, 1992, she was called by the accused
Alejandro Atop to do something for him. When she
By Order of July 29, 2004,10 the trial court denied the approached him the accused rushed towards her,
Motion to Quash on the basis of this Court’s11 removed her panty and inserted his male organ into her
affirmation in Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses12 of therein vagina. She was not able to do anything to resist him
respondent judge’s denial of a similar motion to quash because the accused gagged her mouth and was
on the ground that "the other offense charged x x x is not
carrying a knife with him. She was then 12 years old
one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294 x x x." 13
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise when the first rape was committed to her and at that time
denied by September 22, 2004 Resolution,14 hence, her grandmother was then attending a delivery since her
petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari15 before the Court grandmother was a "hilot". When her grandmother
of Appeals. returned home she told her what the accused did to her
but her grandmother, again, refused to believe her. She
Issue: also remember [sic] of another incident wherein she was
raped again by the accused Alejandro Atop. It was in the
Ruling: year 1993 but she could not recall the month when it was
committed. Only she and the accused were then at their
Penalty: The crux of the controversy lies in the
house at Barangay Santa Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte as her
interpretation of the underscored proviso. Petitioner,
188
 AB
grandmother was at San Vicente attending to a delivery. nieces whom he took from Butuan City and sent them to
Again, she told her grandmother about the heinous acts school. He denied committing rape against Regina
that the accused did to her but her Lola refused to Guafin on October 9, 1992, in the year 1993 and on
believe her. December 26, 1994. On December 31, 1994, while he
was at his house, Regina went to the barrio proper to go
On December 26, 1994, the accused again raped her. to school. In the afternoon of the same date, he went to
She could not ask for help because her mouth was fetch Regina Guafin because at that time classes were
gagged by the accused. Aside from gagging her, the not regular yet. At that time, the companions of Regina
accused carried a knife which he placed at his side. were Jovelyn and Rubilyn. He also denied committing an
On December 31, 1994, while she together with her Aunt offense against Regina Guafin on December 31, 1994.
Gloria Montealto and her two (2) nieces Rubilen and He testified also that he did not evade arrest by going
Jubilen Atop were about to go to sleep, she noticed that out of Matag-ob, Leyte because during that time he was
the accused was looking for her. Upon seeing her the working in Hideco as a laborer. The reason why Regina
accused rushed towards her and was about to lay on top Guafin filed a case against him because the said private
of her. She kicked him. After that, the accused caressed complainant was coached by her aunt who wanted him
and touched his nieces but his nieces also kicked him. and his wife Trinidad to be separated.
Thereafter, the accused stopped molesting her and his On cross examination, he testified also that he was told
nieces and went to sleep instead. In the following by his cousin Nicolas Valencia that her [sic] wife Trinidad
morning, January 1, 1995, she went to the barrio to go to was prevented by her children from visiting him in jail
school. She then forgot that there were no classes. She upon her arrival from Manila.10
was not able to get a ride towards the school, so she
went directly to the house of her grandfather Zacarias Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred erred in
Geva. While she was at the house of her Lolo Geva, the appreciating the circumstances of nighttime and
accused arrived and immediately entered the house of relationship as aggravating the penalty imposable for the
her grandfather. The accused was met by Rubilen Atop rape allegedly committed on October 9, 1992, in 1993
who was about to box him but they immediately went out and on December 26, 1994.
of the house and the accused followed them. The
accused wanted to bring her back to their house but she Ruling: The appeal is partly meritorious. We find that the
refused. So, the accused pulled her. The accused kept alleged aggravating circumstances were not duly proved.
on holding her until they reached the waiting shed were I. Nighttime
the accused smashed her to the concrete wall.
The time-settled rule is that nocturnity, as an aggravating
She reported the incidents of rape that happened in circumstance, must have been deliberately sought by the
1992, 1993 and 1994 only in January 1995. It took her offender to facilitate the crime or prevent its discovery or
so long to report the said incidents because she was evade his capture or facilitate his escape.14 The culprit
afraid. The accused threatened to kill her should she tell must have purposely taken advantage of the cover of
anybody about that incidents. She was accompanied by night as an indispensable factor to attain his criminal
her Aunts Fe Decio and Rosenda Andales in reporting purpose.15
the said incidents to the police. Her statement was taken
by the police at the police headquarters. Thereafter, she We find merit in Appellant Atop's contention, to which the
filed a complaint with the Municipal Trial Judge of Matag- solicitor general agrees, that the prosecution failed to
ob, Leyte . . . In her sworn statement which was also prove that nighttime was deliberately sought by appellant
marked as Exhibit "1" for the defense, she only stated to facilitate this dastardly acts. In fact, the prosecution
therein that what was inserted into her vagina on July failed to show that appellant consummated his carnal
1991 was only the finger of the accused. Out of fear, she designs at night, except only for the December 26, 1994
deliberately concealed from the investigator what incident which the victim said occurred at 11:00 p.m.16
actually had happened to her because at that time, Much less is there any evidence substantiating the trial
because the accused would kill her. Then she filed court's conclusion that appellant intentionally sought the
complaints with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor darkness to advance his criminal exploits.
and requested the fiscal to make a re-investigation in
II. Relationship as an aggravating
these cases. She told the Fiscal the truth of what was
circumstance
done to her by the accused because at that time the
accused was already arrested. Neither can we appreciate relationship as an aggravating
circumstance. The scope of relationship as defined by
Version of the Defense
law encompasses (1) the spouse; (2) an ascendant; (3)
Appellant denied the accusations of Guafin and imputed a descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted
ill motive upon her aunts, who were the daughters of his brother or sister; or (5) a relative by affinity in the same
live-in partner.9 The trial court summed up his testimony degree.17 Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by
this wise: virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by
affinity therefore are those commonly referred to as "in-
Accused Alejandro Atop [then 37 years old] testified that laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like;
he and Trinidad Mejos had been living together as in contrast to relatives by consanguinity or blood
husband and wife for about 10 years already. When they relatives encompassed under the second, third and
started living together, Trinidad Mejos was already a fourth enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched
widow with eight (8) children of her previous marriage. to include persons attached by common-law relations.
When he started to live with Trinidad Mejos the latter's Here, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that
children became mad at him because their mother was links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying
already old and was still young. He personally knew circumstance of relationship cannot be considered
Regina Guafin, the latter being their adopted child. against him.
Regina Guafin was still 2 years old when he and his wife
took care of her. That Regina Guafin continuously Neither is the following provision of Sec. 11, R.A. 7659
resided at Sta. Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte. The other applicable:
persons who also lived with them aside from Regina
Sec. 11. Article 335 of the [Revised Penal] Code is
Guafin, were the three sons of Trinidad and his two (2)
hereby amended to read as follows:
189
 AB
xxx xxx xxx blade in the other. The defendant snatched the bolo from
him, cutting his fingers. This Moro left for the camp to
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of report the matter to the authorities. Soon after this
rape is committed with any of the following attendant McKay and the Moro Pindolonan, being seated side by
circumstances: side at a distance of from 3 to 6 feet from the defendant,
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age who was either standing or sitting on the stairway which
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, led into the house, the latter raised his pistol and fired at
guardian relative by consanguinity or affinity within the McKay. The bullet struck him in the back of the head and
third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the killed him instantly. The Moro at once jumped up, looked
parent of the victim. around to see where the shot came from, and started to
run, whereupon the defendant shot him. The exact
xxx xxx xxx nature of his injuries does not appear,, but it appears
that at the time of the trial, about a month after the event,
Undisputed is the fact that appellant is not the common-
he was still in the hospital. At some time, probably after
law spouse of the parent of the victim. He is the
the killing of McKay, although the defendant says it was
common-law husband of the girl's grandmother.
before, the latter killed a dog which was on the premises.
Needless to state, neither is appellant the victim's
The defendant and McKay were both drunk at this time.
"parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree." Issue:
Hence, he is not encompassed in any of the
relationships expressly enumerated the aforecited Ruling: The court below held that the defendant was
provision. drunk at the time the act was committed, but held also
that drunkenness was habitual with him and therefore his
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal condition could not be taken into consideration for the
statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the purpose of lessening the sentence. The defendant in this
accused.18 Courts must not bring cases within the court claims that the court erred in holding that
provision of a law which are not clearly embraced by it. drunkenness was habitual with the defendant. The
No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly testimony upon that point furnished by one of the
made so by statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly witnesses for the defendant is as follows:
within the terms of a statute can be brought within
them.19 Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor Q. Did you say that you saw the accused and McKay
of the accused.20 drinking together on the night before the day of the
occurrence? -
Penalty: For the rape incidents on October 9, 1992 and
sometime in 1993, the court a quo correctly imposed the A. Yes, sir.
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two criminal Q. Is it not true that the said night was the first time
acts. The third rape incident, however, occurred after the you saw the accused drinking?
effectivity of RA 7659, the law which imposed the death
penalty on certain heinous crimes. Under this A. No, sir. It is not true. I have seen him drink before.
amendatory law, the penalty for rape committed with the
use of a deadly weapon is reclusion perpetua to death. Q. But you never saw him drunk before?
This provision is applicable in the instant case, since A. Yes, sir.
private complainant was threatened with a knife when
appellant consummated his beastly acts on her. Q. How many times had you seen the accused drunk
before?
In cases where the penalty prescribed is composed of
two indivisible penalties and there is neither an A. That is a difficult question to answer; I have seen
aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance in the him drunk many times. The first time I knew the accused
commission of the felony, the lesser penalty should be I saw him drunk twelve or more times.
applied. Since there was no modifying circumstance
Q. Then you mean to say that drunkenness was
even in the third rape, the penalty therefor should be
habitual with the accused?
reclusion perpetua, not the graver penalty of death as
imposed by the court a quo. As earlier explained, the A. When I have seen him drinking, usually he retired
attendant relationships enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA drunk to the quarters.
7659 do not apply either.
Q. How many times have you seen the accused
2. US vs. McMann drinking during the time you have known him?
Facts: The defendant, McMann, and one McKay were A. I could not say; too may times to recollect.
packers at Camp Vicars in Mindanao, employed by the
Quartermaster's Department of the Army. On the day in Q. Are you sure of this?
question the defendant had charge of some mules about
A. Yes, sir.
one- and one-half miles from the camp. McKay was not
on guard at the time, but, for some reason which does We think this testimony justifies the court below in its
not appear, was near the place where the defendant was holding in view of what is said in some of the decisions
stationed with the mules. McKay went to the house of a cited by the defendant in his brief. In the case of
Moro, Amay Pindolonan, for the purpose of getting Commonwealth vs. Whitney (5 Gray; 85) the court said:
matches with which to light his cigar. With his revolver in
his hand he attempted to enter the house, but the owner The exact degree of intemperance which constitutes a
would not allow him to do so. A few moments later the drunkard it may not be easy to define, but speaking in
defendant arrived at the same house. He attempted to general terms, and with the accuracy of which the matter
enter, but was unable to do so on account of the is susceptible, he is a drunkard whose habit is to get
opposition of the owner. He also carried his revolver in drunk, "whose ebriety has become habitual." To convict
his hand with the hammer raised ready to be discharged. a man of the offense of being a common drunkard it is,
A Moro named Master, who was there at the time, was at the least, necessary to show that he is a habitual
carving the head of a bolo with one hand, holding the

190
 AB
drunkard. Indeed, the terms 'drunkard' and 'habitual craft was employed not with a view to making treachery
drunkard' mean the same thing. more effective as nighttime and abuse of superior
strength would in the killing of the victim. It was directed
3. People vs. San Pedro actually towards facilitating the taking of the jeep in the
Facts: In the afternoon of June 2, 1970, the lifeless body robbery scheme as planned by the culprits. From the
of a person was found somewhere between the barrios definition of treachery, it is manifest that the element of
of Masaya and Paciano Rizal Municipality of Bay, defense against bodily injury makes treachery proper for
Laguna. The body was brought to the municipal building consideration only in crimes against person as so
of Bay for autopsy. Dr. Fe Manansala-Pantas, in her explicitly provided by the Revised Penal Code (Art.
autopsy report, Exh. B, noted that the deceased died of 14[16]).
profuse hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated and stab Aside from the foregoing observation, decisional rulings
wounds and multiple abrasions found on the different argue against appellant's submission. Thus in the case
parts of the body of the deceased. of U.S. vs. Gampona, et al., 36 Phil. 817 (1917) where
The deceased was identified to be Felimon Rivera, a the crime charged was murder, qualified by treachery,
driver of a passenger jeep belonging to Pablito delos craft was considered separately to aggravate the killing.
Reyes, a fruit vendor. Earlier in the day, Rivera was out Note that in this cited case, the crime was killing alone,
driving the jeep. But that was to be the last time for him which has a weightier rationale. for, merging the two
to drive the jeep for on that same day, he was killed, and aggravating circumstances, than when, as in crime of
his jeep was no longer found or recovered. robbery with homicide, craft has a very distinct
application to the crime of robbery, separate and
It was not until June 11, 1971, that the police authorities independent of the homicide. Yet, it was held that craft
found a concrete lead to the solution of the case. and treachery were separate and distinct aggravating
Rodrigo Esguerra, when apprehended and interviewed circumstances. The same ruling was announced in
by the police, admitted his participation and named his People vs. Sakam, et al., 61 Phil. 27 (1934).
companions. He gave a written statement, Exh. F. Soon
the police began rounding up the other suspects. In People v. Malig, 83 Phil. 804, (1949) craft which
consisted in luring the victim to another barrio, was
Artemio Banasihan was apprehended sometime in 1972. considered absorbed by treachery. This may be so
On March 3 of said year, he was investigated by Sgt. because craft enhanced the effectiveness of the means,
Juan Tolentino of the Philippine Constabulary. He gave a method or form adopted in the execution of the crime,
statement which was sworn to before the Acting one against persons, "which tend directly and specially
Municipal Judge of Los Baños, Laguna, confessing his to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
participation in the robbery and killing of Felimon Rivera from the defense which the offended party might make."
(Exh. H). In said statement, Banasihan recounted that Even so, the Court was divided in the inclusion or
four days before June 2, 1970, he and his co-accused absorption of craft by treachery. And again, the offense
met and planned to get the jeep driven by the deceased. charged was one solely against persons.
Carrying out their plan, he and Luisito San Pedro
approached Rivera in the afternoon of June 2, 1970 and II. Mitigating circumstance: Lack of
on the pretext of hiring Rivera's jeep to haul coconuts, instruction
they proceeded to Bo. Puypuy in Bay, Laguna, where With the presence of two aggravating circumstances,
they were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo craft and treachery, it would make no difference even if
Esguerra. Esguerra was then carrying a water pipe the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction were
wrapped in paper. Upon reaching a river between the appreciated in appellant's favor which is even doubtful
barrios of Mainit and Puypuy San Pedro ordered Rivera from the fact alone, as was allegedly proven by the
to stop. Whereupon, at Esguerra's signal, Litan hit testimony of appellant that he cannot read and write but
Rivera at the nape with the water pipe. Rivera jumped can only sign his name.
out of the jeep but was chased by San Pedro and Litan
who stabbed him at the back several times with a This, apart from the fact that as held categorically in the
dagger. Esguerra then drove the jeep and the group case of People vs. Enot, 6 SCRA 325 (1962) lack of
proceeded to Makati, Rizal, He then joined Nelson Piso instruction is not applicable to crimes of theft and
and Antonio Borja. The jeep was brought to Cavite City robbery, much less to the crime of homicide. The reason
where it was sold for P2,000.00. Four days later, Piso is that robbery and killing are, by their nature, wrongful
went to Los Baños and gave San Pedro, Litan and acts, and are manifestly so to the enlightened, equally as
Banasihan P50.00 each, with the promise that the to the ignorant (People vs. Salip Manla et al., 30 SCRA
balance would be given later. However, the promised 389 [1969]).
balance was not given them.
As recently held by this Court, speaking through Justice
Issue: Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., the "criteria in determining
lack of instruction is not illiteracy alone, but rather lack of
1) Whether the aggravating circumstance of craft is sufficient intelligence." It is significant that neither to the
absorbed by treachery. trial court nor to the appellant's counsel has the
2) Whether the resulting single aggravating mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction entered the
circumstance of treachery should be offset by the mind. No attempt was made to prove it, as direct proof,
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, as not mere inference, is required, and must be invoked in
appellant claims should be appreciated in his favor, the court below (People vs. Mongado, et al., 28 SCRA
thereby calling for the reduction of the death penalty 642, [1969]), the reason being that the trial court can
to that of life imprisonment. best gauge a person's level of intelligence from his
Ruling: manner of answering questions in court (People v.
Manuel, 29 SCRA 337 [1969]). If the trial court did not
I. Craft absorbed by treachery consider the mitigating circumstance invoked for the first
time here on appeal, it must be because from appellant's
We cannot subscribe to the theory of craft being
testimony, and even more so from his given occupation
absorbed by treachery, as nighttime and abuse of
as a merchant (T.S.N., p. 3, Sept. 1, 1975), his alleged
superior strength may be so absorbed, as held in
lack of intelligence never suggested itself to the trial
numerous decisions of this Court.' In the instant case,
191
 AB
court or to his lawyer, as entitling him to the mitigating g) Moises Grandeza
circumstance of lack of instruction.
went to the office of Col. Nicolas Torres at PNP
Headquarters where they met the colonel who told them
PERSONS CRIMINALLY that if you find these two people (referring to Lumangyao
LIABLE and Gargar) to bring and hide them at Dragon Lodge
Motel.
1. People vs. Yanson-Dumancas 8:30 A.M., August 6, 1992
Facts: Acting upon the inducement of spouse Jeanette State witness Moises Grandeza went to the house of
Yanson-Dumancas and Charles Dumancas, under the Helen Tortocion to invite Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino
direction, cooperation and undue influence, exerted by Gargar Jr. to "Tinolahan Eatery" at Shopping Center
P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres, taking advantage of his Terminal but found only Gargar Jr., as Lumangyao went
position as the Station Commander of the Philippine to the house of a certain Bardot at BBB Avenue, this
National Police, Bacolod City Station, with the direct City.
participation and cooperation of Police Inspector Adonis
C. Abeto, other police officers Vicente Canuday, Jr., Moises Grandeza together with Gargar Jr. proceeded to
Jose Pahayupan, Mario Lamis, civilian (police) agents the house of Bardot where they found Lumangyao and
Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody thereafter the three of them went to "Tinolahan Eatery".
Delgado, Jaime Gargallano, also taking advantage of
their respective positions, and Dominador Geroche, 9:00-10:00 A.M. August 6, 1992
concurring and affirming in the said criminal design, with The three arrived at "Tinulahan Eatery". Waiting for them
the use of motor vehicle abduct, kidnap and detain one were:
DANILO LUMANGYAO and shortly thereafter at around
11 o'clock in the evening of August 7, 1993 (1992), a) Dominador Geroche
failing in their aforesaid common purpose to extort
money and in furtherance of said conspiracy, with b) Jaime Gargallano
evident premeditation and treachery nocturnity and the c) Edwin Divinagracia
use of motor vehicle, did then and there shot and kill the
said victim, while being handcuffed and blindfolded, that d) Rolando Fernandez
accused CESAR PECHA and EDGAR HILADO, with
e) Teody Delgado; and
knowledge that said Lumangyao was victim of violence,
did then and there secretly bury the corpse in a f) Mario Lamis
makeshift shallow grave for the purpose of concealing
the crime of murder in order to prevent its discovery for a Then a) Fernandez b) Geroche and c) Lamis entered
fee of P500.00 each; aforesaid act or acts has caused "Tinulahan" and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar.
damage and prejudice to the heirs of said victim.
Waiting in the red Toyota Land Cruiser (Plate No. 689)
Timeline were:

February 20, 1992 a) Gargallano

Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold b) Divinagracia; and

bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao
c) Delgado
and his cohort.
10:30 A.M. August 6, 1992
10:30 A.M. August 5, 1992 present in the house of
Rolando Fernandez were: Lumangyao and Gargar were brought to the Office of
Jeanette at Ceres Compound on board red toyota land
a) Dominador Geroche
cruiser by:
b) Rolando Fernandez
a) Moises Grandeza
c) Jaime Gargallano
b) Gargallano
d) Edwin Divinagracia
c) Lamis
e) Teody Delgado
d) Geroche
f) Mario Lamis and
e) Divinagracia
g) Moises Grandeza
f) Delgado, and
On this occasion Mario Lamis brought out the plan to
g) Fernandez
abduct Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr.
because they swindled the Dumancas family. It was there that a) Divinagracia and, b) Fernandez
manhandled Lumangyao and Gargar. Jeanette then
4:30 P.M. August 5, 1992
investigated the two victims on the whereabouts of the
The group of: money that they swindled from her and the two
answered that it was already spent.
a) Dominador Geroche
It was then that Jeanette ordered Doming (Geroche) to
b) Mario Lamis take care of the two (Lumangyao and Gargar).
c) Rolando Fernandez 3:00 P.M. August 6, 1992
d) Jaime Gargallano From Ceres Compound and while the group, together
with the two victims, were already at Dragon Lodge
e) Edwin Divinagracia
Motel, thereafter,
f) Teody Delgado
192
 AB
a) Abeto c) Pahayupan

b) Pahayupan, and entered the room and asked Fernandez what they are
going to do with the two victims to which Fernandez,
c) Canuday replied that he will be responsible for the two.
arrived and investigated the two victims regarding the 11:00 P.M. August 7, 1992
whereabouts of the gold bar and the two replied that it
was with Helen Tortocion. a) Geroche

4·:00 P.M. August 6, 1992 b) Lamis

a) Moises Grandeza c) Fernandez, and

b) Fernandez, and d) Moises Grandeza

c) Geroche rode on the red Toyota Land Cruiser to conduct Geroche

to his house. The victims were left behind.
went to the office of Col. Torres to inform him that
Lumangyao and Gargar were already captured. So Col. From his house Geroche took an armalite rifle and the
Torres ordered them to keep the two victims so that group then went back to D'Hacienda Motel.
nobody would see them. After receiving this instructions
they went back to Dragon Lodge. Meanwhile, Geroche 12:00 P.M. August 7, 1992
again interrogated the victims on where the money was a) Fernandez, and
— if there was still any let and Geroche received the
same negative reply. b) Lamis

Past 6:00 p.m. August 6, 1992 blindfolded and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar
(Exh. "A" and "A-1") and have them board a vehicle, with
The group, with the two captives transferred to
D'Hacienda Motel. a) Gargallano the driver

9:00 P.M. August 6, 1992 b) Geroche sitting in front, and with

At D'Hacienda Motel, Jeanette and Charles Dumancas, c) Moises Grandeza also seated inside.
together with Rose Ines arrived. Jeanette and Rose Ines
From D'Hacienda Motel, the group rode on the red
investigated the victims where they kept the money that
toyota land cruiser. They proceeded to Hda. Pedrosa in
they swindled and the two gave the same reply that it
Brgy. Alijis. When they arrived there the two victims were
was already gone. Jeanette then reiterated her order to
ordered to alight and sit by the side of the road. Geroche
Geroche to take care of the two.
then asked Moises Grandeza to hold the hands of
9:30 P.M. August 6, 1992 Lumangyao and then Gargar behind their backs. After
that —
The group transferred to Moonlight Inn Motel.
a) Gargallano was the first to shoot. He shot Gargar at
3:00 A.M. August 7, 1992 the back of his head (Exh. K) using a baby armalite.
The group transferred again to Casamel Lodge Motel. Then

10:00 A.M. August 7, 1992 b) Geroche followed suit by shooting Lumangyao with a .
45 cal. Pistol at his right lower jaw (Exh. L).
The group returned to D'Hacienda Motel and it was there
that the plan was pursued to liquidate the two victims at Thereafter, the two dead bodies were loaded on board
12:00 midnight. the land cruiser and brought to Hda. Siason where
Pecha and Hilado buried them in the shallow grave they
The persons who conceived of this plan were: dug.

a) Geroche, and August 8, 1992

b) Fernandez In Sitio Cabalagnan were recovered

4:30 P.M. August 7, 1992 a) Three (3) empty shells of armalite rifle and one .45
cal. Empty shell (Exh. "G", "G-2")
1) Canuday
In Hda. Siason were recovered
2) Abeto
a) the dead bodies of Rufino Gargar, Jr. and Danilo
3) Dudero Lumangyao
4) Lesaca, and b) Both of the two victims hands were handcuffed (Exh.
5) Arollado "A" and "A-1").

searched the residence of Helen Tortocion for the gold August 9, 1992
dust and simulated gold bar per search warrant 014-92 The same group again went to see Col. Torres in his
(Exh. "D") but the search was fruitless. office and reported the extermination of the two and Col.
7:30 P.M. August 7, 1992 Torres promptly gave the instruction that "you who are
here inside, nobody knows what you have done but you
The group, including the victims, partook of supper which have to hide because the NBI are after you.
was charged to Roy Yanson.
August 10, 1992
Then a) Abeto
a) Lamis
b) Canuday, and
b) Geroche
193
 AB
c) Fernandez (pp. 73-85, Decision; pp. 202-214, Rollo.)

d) Divinagracia Issue:

e) Gargallano 1) Whether or not sufficient evidence was adduced by

the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
f) Delgado, and that Jeanette indeed performed any of the following
g) Moises Grandeza acts:
a) Directly forcing the killers to commit the crime; or
went back to the office of Col. Torres and this time he b) Directly inducing them to commit the crime.
told the group "to hide because the NBI are now 2) Whether the order supposedly given by Jeanette to
investigating". accused-appellant Geroche "to take care of the two"
constitutes words of command which may be
4:00 P.M. August 12, 1992
considered sufficient basis to convict Jeanette as
The same group that liquidated Lumangyao and Gargar principal by inducement.
again went back to the office of Col. Torres where they
Ruling:
were asked by Col. Torres to escort him to Ceres
Compound because he would like to borrow money from I. First issue
Ricardo Yanson as Col. Torres said that he has huge a. Directly forcing another to commit a crime
debts to pay. Col. Torres was able on this occasion, to
meet Ricardo Yanson. There are 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit a
crime, namely: (i) by using irresistible force, or (ii) by
On this same day, causing uncontrollable fear. Upon review of the
testimony of all the witnesses of the prosecution, we find
a) Moises Grandeza
nothing to conclude that Jeanette used irresistible force
b) Lamis, and or caused uncontrollable fear upon the other accused-
appellants. From the factual findings of the trial court, it
c) Geroche is patent that the plan to abduct and liquidate the victims
was hatched on August 5, 1992 (10:30 A.M.) without
were picked up in a land cruiser by the driver of the
Jeanette's involvement or participation whatsoever (p.
Yansons' to go to the house of Fernandez where
202, Rollo).
Geroche will give the money to the group. Each member
of the group, after the check, which was drawn by The record is entirely bereft of any evidence to show that
Yanson, was encashed were given the amount of Jeanette directly forced the participants of the said
P1,700.00 each. meeting to come up with such plan, by either using
irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear. The only
August 13, 1992
basis relied upon by the trial court in arriving at its
Nenita Bello went to the office of Col. Torres to plead for conclusion that Jeanette is guilty of the crime as principal
his help in regard to the death of her relatives by inducement, is the supposed "commands" or order
Lumangyao and Gargar but was promptly turned down given by her to accused-appellant Dominador Geroche
by Colonel Torres with the curt remark that her case was on two occasions (one inside the Ceres Compound: p.
very difficult because it involves the "military" and some 205, Rollo, and the other in D'Hacienda Motel: p. 207,
"big times". Rollo). By no stretch of the imagination may these so-
called "commands", standing alone, be considered as
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bacolod City also constituting irresistible force or causing uncontrollable
passed, on this day, Resolution No. 328, series of 1992 fear.
urging the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
conduct an investigation on the death of "salvage b. Directly inducing another to commit a crime
victims" Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. as
Likewise, there are 2 ways of directly inducing another to
soon as possible (Exh. "I").
commit a crime, namely: (i) by giving a price, or offering
September 24, 1992 reward or promise, and (ii) by using words of command.
The Court finds no evidence, as did the trial court, to
The bodies of Rufino Gargar Jr. and Danilo Lumangyao show that Jeanette offered any price, reward, or promise
were exhumed at Brgy. Buenavista Cemetery, to the rest of accused-appellants should they abduct and
Balintawak, Escalante, Negros Occidental and autopsies later kill the victims in this case.
were conducted (Exhs. "M" and "N") by Dr. Ricardo
Jaboneta, Medico Legal Officer of the NBI. If at all, the prosecution witness mentioned the name of
Ricardo Yanson as having lent money to accused-
a) Found on the body of Rufino Gargar, Jr. (per appellant Col. Torres to be used for paying the latter's
examination report, Exh. "M") among others, were debts or obligations. But definitely, no money ever came
ligature marks, wrist joint, right side (Exh. "M-2"), and from Jeanette herself. The trial court's surmise that the
money delivered by Ricardo Yanson to the group was
b) Gunshot wound (Exh. "M-1")
with the knowledge and approval of Jeanette in
As to Danilo Lumangyao, the exhumation report (Exh. completely baseless.
"N" disclose
II. Second issue
a) Ligature marks, right wrist (Exh. "N-2") and among
situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless act, may give
others, and
birth to a thought of, or even a resolution to crime in the
b) Gunshot wound (Exh. "N-1") mind of one for some independent reason predisposed
thereto without the one who spoke the word or
After the National Bureau of Investigation, Bacolod performed the act having any expectation that his
Office, conducted its investigation, the State Prosecutors suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it
of the Department of Justice took over and the result produce the result. In such case, while the expression
were the filing of these two criminal cases of Kidnapping was imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme,
with Murder against the above-named accused.

194
 AB
he (the one who spoke the word or performed the act) b) Contracts
would not be guilty of the crime committed" (p. 219).
c) Quasi-contracts
Furthermore, the utterance which was supposedly the
act of inducement, should precede the commission of d) xxx xxx xxx
the crime itself (People vs. Castillo, July 26, [1966]). In e) Quasi-delicts
the case at bar, the abduction, which is an essential
element of the crime charged (kidnapping for ransom 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in
with murder) has already taken place when Jeanette Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be
allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to "take care pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action
of the two." Said utterance could, therefore, not have and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
been the inducement to commit the crime charged in this Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
case. action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator of the estate of the accused,
Most importantly, it was duly proven by no less than the depending on the source of obligation upon which the
prosecution witness himself, Moises Grandeza, that the same is based as explained above.
intention of Jeanette was but to allow the law to its
course. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file a separate civil action by
Thus, even the veracity of the allegation that Jeanette prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of
uttered the words: "take care of the two" is put to some the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
reasonable doubt by the prosecution witness himself. offended party instituted together therewith the civil
The remark, if made at all, cannot by any stretch of the action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
imagination, be basis for the conviction of Jeanette. liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
III. In re: Criminal liability of the other criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article
accused 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
a. Police Inspector Abeto apprehension on possible privation of right by
prescription.
With respect to accused-appellant Abeto, we quote with
approval the observations of the Solicitor General as 55-256)
follows: With the application of the above set of rules to accused-
Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto's appeal is meritorious. appellant Torres, we hold that his death extinguished his
Be it remembered that Abeto's only participation was to criminal liability and the civil liability solely based
serve the search warrant on Helen Tortocion's residence thereon. Accordingly, the appeal of accused-appellant
and the subsequent interrogation of the two victims at Torres is forthwith dismissed, such dismissal having the
the Hacienda Motel. He was never part of the conspiracy force and effect of an acquittal.
to abduct and liquidate the two victims. He is similarly c. Cesar Pecha
situated as that of Canuday and Pahayupan.
As to accused-appellant Cesar Pecha's case, the Court
After due consideration of accused-appellant Abeto's finds it difficult to believe that he had no knowledge that
constitutional right to the presumption of innocence, the 2 victims he was burying were victims of violence.
coupled with the presumption of regularity in the The deceased were surely bloodied from their gunshot
performance of his official functions having simply wounds and were in fact still handcuffed when exhumed
followed the order of his superior officers, much is left to from their shallow grave. It becomes almost impossible
be desired before the Court can sustain the trial court's for accused-appellant Pecha not to at least, entertain
conviction of accused-appellant Abeto. The two doubts as to the absence of foul play in this case. He is
presumptions negate the inadequate proof adduced thus guilty as an accessory to the crime committed under
against accused-appellant Abeto, who must perforce be Paragraph 2, Article 19, of the Revised Penal Code, to
acquitted, in much the same manner that accused wit:
Canuday, Jr. and Pahayupan, who being similarly
situated, were cleared and absolved. Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who,
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
b. Police Col. Torres without having participated therein, either as principals or
As for accused-appellant Col. Torres, who passed away accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in
during the pendency of this appeal, the following rule laid any of the following manners:
down by this Court in People vs. Bayotas (236 SCRA 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
239 [1994]) applies: profit by the effects of the crime;
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice discovery;
Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior
to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts
the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
senso strictiore." of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives known to habitually guilty of some other crime.
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than All told, there are only reasons to affirm, and none to
delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these reverse, the trial court's conviction of accused-appellants
other sources of obligation from which the civil liability Pol. Officer Mario Lamis y Fernandez, Dominador
may arise as a result of the same act or omission: Geroche y Mahusay, Jaime Gargallano, Rolando R.
Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, and Teody Delgado as
a) Law principals by direct participation of the crime of
195
 AB
kidnapping for ransom with murder, and that of Cesar P300,000.00 for the release of Engr. Resus. Dr. Resus
Pecha as accessory thereto. told Mondaga that she [could] only produce P10,000.00.
Mondaga told Dr. Resus to reserve the amount for he
2. People vs. Maluenda [would] get it the following morning. He also instructed
Facts: Dr. Resus to look for the firearm of her husband. Dr.
Resus then searched for the gun (Exh. H) of her
Version of the Prosecution husband and after finding it in the cabinet in their room,
gave the same to Mondaga. After [the gun was given to
On August 19, 1992 at around 9:45 in the evening, Engr.
him], Mondaga demanded for the use of Engr. Resus'
Miguel E. Resus ("Engr. Resus") and his wife, Dr.
motorcycle, but Dr. Resus told him that the motorcycle
Bernardita B. Resus ("Dr. Resus"), arrived at their
[was] out of order. So Mondaga instructed Dr. Resus to
residence/clinic at Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur,
get the motorcycle of Legarto, which Dr. Resus did.
from a novena they attended. Waiting for the Resus
spouses at the clinic which adjoins the Resus spouses' On August 21, 1992, at around 4:45 a.m. Mondaga
residence were three men who identified themselves as arrived at Dr. Resus' clinic. Shortly thereafter, Legarto
Commander Bobong Gonzaga (who is actually Raul also arrived in his motorcycle. Mondaga demanded that
Mondaga), Commander Bongkoy (who is actually Dr. Resus go with them but the latter made excuses
Maluenda) and alias "Alex". Upon the arrival of the particularly her health. Dr. Resus asked that her helper
Resus spouses, Mondaga declared that they came upon Maria Abne go instead to which Mondaga agreed. At
orders of a certain Father Simon, an alleged NPA exactly 5:00 a.m., Mondaga, Legarto and Maria Abne left
Commander, with his directive to solicit money and Dr. Resus' clinic, bringing with them the P10,000.00 Dr.
medicines needed for the victims of the recent military- Resus gave and the Magnum 22 of Engr. Resus. The
NPA encounter at Melale, Agusan del Sur. The trio three arrived at Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur
demanded from the couple medicines and money in the at around 7:00 a.m. Legarto then safely kept his
amount of P20,000.00, but when the couple told them motorcycle after which they walked to the forest for
that they did not have such an amount, they lowered about 2 hours until they reached a carabao crossing
their demand to P10,000.00, and reduced it still to where Mondaga left Legarto and Maria Abne for 30
P5,000.00 when the couple still could not produce the minutes. Mondaga went to the hut where he left Engr.
said amount. Finally, the demand was lowered to any Resus with a note from Dr. Resus which state[d],
amount the Resus couple could provide. The latter gave "Daddy, I have committed only P10,000.00". He gave the
the amount of P500.00 plus assorted medicines worth note to Engr. Resus but told Engr. Resus that "you can
P800.00. After they were given the money and afford P300,000.00". Engr. Resus pleaded with
medicines, the trio demanded that they be driven by Mondaga that they [did] not have such amount so
Engr. Resus in his Volkswagen car to San Roque, Mondaga lowered his demand to P200,000.00. Engr.
Barobo, Surigao del Sur, but the couple begged off Resus then signed the note stating, "Mommy, it is up to
reasoning that their car [did] have any sufficient gasoline you to produce this amount." With the note, Mondaga
and that the car was not in good running condition to and Legarto went back to Alegria, while Abne was left
travel that night. Mondaga then demanded that very with Engr. Resus. Legarto who was driving Engr. Resus'
early in the morning, the couple should prepare the car, went to the house of Nora Gubantes where Dr.
vehicle so Engr. Resus [could] drive them to San Roque, Resus was at that time and informed her that Mondaga
Barobo, Surigao del Sur. They left the clinic with [a] [was] waiting [for] her at SSIFA, St. Christine. Dr. Resus
threat not to tell anybody about their coming, otherwise went with Legarto at SSIFA, St. Christine where they met
they [would] kill all the members of their family and blow- Mondaga, who joined them at the car after which the
up the clinic. three proceeded to a deserted place. Mondaga then
handed to Dr. Resus the note written by Engr. Resus
The next day or on August 20, 1992 at around 5:00
where it was written the P200,000.00 ransom. [sic] Dr.
o'clock in the morning, Mondaga arrived at the residence
Resus told Mondaga that she [could] only produce
of the Resus couple. Mondaga hurried up Engr. Resus
P100,000.00 Mondaga agreed to the P100,000.00 on
as he [would] meet his companions who were ferried by
the additional condition that he [would] no longer return
Legarto. Engr. Resus then drove Mondaga to Andanan.
the motorcycle of Legarto and instead to give to Legarto
As the two passed along Andanan, they met Legarto,
the amount of P50,000.00 as payment for the
who was on his way back to Diatogon after his
motorcycle. Mondaga also instructed Legarto to deliver
passengers, i.e., Maluenda and Alex, alighted from his
the amount of P100,000.00 and the original license of
motorcycle and [waited] for Mondaga and Engr. Resus at
the motorcycle. Dr. Resus and Legarto then went back to
Andanan. Maluenda and Alex then rode with Mondaga
the clinic leaving Mondaga behind.
and Engr. Resus to Barobo. Upon reaching Barobo,
Mondaga told Engr. Resus that they [would] go to San At around 1:30 p.m. of August 21, 1992, Dr. Resus,
Francisco instead of going to San Roque. They, together with Nora Gubantes, went to Lianga to secure
however, did not reach San Francisco, and instead they money from the relatives of Dr. Resus. Since Dr. Resus'
stopped at Alegria. Upon reaching Alegria, Mondaga cousins were out of town, the two proceeded to San
ordered Engr. Resus that he had to go with them. Francisco, Agusan del Sur to see Dr. Presentacion
Against his will, Engr. Resus went with the three. They Manatad, the mayor of San Francisco. Dr. Resus
went to the mountain hiking for almost two (2) hours informed Mayor Manatad about the incident and asked
between the boundary of Cardon and Alegria. Upon the mayor to give her an amount of P150,000.00 in
reaching a hut, Mondaga told him that he had forgotten return for a PNB Check Dr. Resus [would] issue. Mayor
something and had to go back and that Engr. Resus had Manatad gave her the amount after Dr. Resus issued
to stay there. So Engr. Resus, Maluenda, Alex and Gil PNB Check No. 621330-AJ in the amount of
Bueno passed the night in the farmhut. P150,000.00 (Exh. B). Dr. Resus gave the money to
Nora Gubantes with the instruction to give the same to
Meanwhile at the house of the Resus couple, Dr. Resus
Legarto. Upon reaching Diatogon, Nora Gubantes gave
was informed by the midwife that Mondaga came at
the money to her husband with the instruction to give the
around 4:00 p.m. when Dr. Resus was out. Mondaga
money to Legarto. Legarto acknowledged receiving the
told the midwife that he [would] come back. Mondaga
money from Mr. Gubantes on August 22, 1992.
arrived at the Resus clinic at around 7:00 in the evening.
Mondaga demanded from Dr. Resus the amount of

196
 AB
On August 22, 1992, Mondaga arrived at the hut where order. (ibid.) Mondaga ordered her to secure a
Engr. Resus was and told that [sic] the latter that he motorcycle. (ibid) Dr. Resus, together with her maid,
would be released but that he [would] come back to get Maria Abne, went to the house of their driver, Rudy
the balance of the P300,000.00 in three months. In the Legarto. (TSN, November 23, 1993, p. 22) Dr. Resus
afternoon of August 22, 1992, Engr. Resus and Maria requested Rudy Legarto to drive for Maria Abne and
Abne were released. The two were driven by Legarto in Mondaga in his motorcycle to Alegria and on his return,
Engr. Resus['] car. to drive for his Manong Mike. (ibid) Legarto refused
because of his work. (ibid) But when Dr. Resus insisted
Mondaga, Maluenda and Legarto were later arrested by and when told that it was very important to conduct
the police. Maria Abne and Mondaga, and because she was his
Version of the Defense boss, he agreed. (ibid.) He was asked to file a leave of
absence from his job. (ibid.) It is important to note that it
Appellant Legarto, the Resus couple's former part-time was [Dr.] Resus who got Legarto involved in this drama.
driver, denies any criminal involvement in the
kidnapping. He avows that he participated only in the At around 5:00 in the morning of August 21, 1992,
delivery of the ransom money at the insistence of Dr. Legarto drove for Maria Abne and Mondaga to Alegria at
Resus herself. In Legarto's Supplemental Brief, his the behest of Dr. Resus. (ibid, p. 23) At Alegria, the three
counsel submits the following counter-statement of proceeded of [sic] Dr. Resus (ibid, p. 23) to a hilly side.
facts:9 (ibid.) Legarto and Maria Abne were left behind and
Mondaga told them that he [would] inform his
On August 19, 1992, at 9:45 in the evening, Engr. Miguel commander to release Engr. Resus. (ibid.) They were
E. Resus and wife Dr. Bernardita B. Resus, arrived at also warned not to escape because they were guarded.
their clinic near their residence at Diatagon, Lianga, (ibid.)
Surigao del Sur after attending a novena. (TSN, March
16, 1993, p.3). There were three (3) men who were At about 9:00 in the evening, Engr. Resus, together with
waiting for them at the clinic, later identified as Mondaga, arrived. Legarto was told by Engr. Resus not
Commander Bobong Gonzaga (Raul Mondaga), to worry as he was treated well. (ibid.) Engr. Resus told
Commander Bongkoy (Daniel Maluenda), and a certain Mondaga that Legarto was his driver and Maria Abne
"Alex" (ibid. p. 5). Mondaga, upon arrival of the spouses, was his helper. (ibid.) [O]n the way back, Legarto and
solicited money and medicines from them, upon orders Abne walked five (5) meters ahead while Mondaga and
of a certain Father Simon, an NPA Commander (ibid, p. Engr. Resus walked side by side. Legarto and Abne
7). These money and medicines were needed for the heard their conversations (ibid, pp. 23-24) and Mondaga
victims of the recent military-NPA encounter at Melale, was demanding P300,000.00. Engr. Resus pleaded that
Agusan del Sur. (ibid.). At first, the three asked for he [did not] have that amount. (ibid) Mondaga them
P20,000.00 (ibid. p. 8) but lowered it to P10,000.00, and ordered Engr. Resus to make a note to his wife, Dr.
still reduced it to P5,000.00. Finally, the Resus spouses Resus stating that P300,000.00 be given. (ibid) After the
could only give P500.00 together with P800.00 worth of note was signed, Mondaga got the keys of the
medicines. (TSN, March 17, 1993 p. 42) Volkswagen car and the motorcycle while Legarto was
brought along to Alegria. (ibid, p. 25) Engr. Resus and
After the money and medicines were handed to them, Maria Abne were left behind. (ibid) When they arrived at
the three people demanded that they be driven by Engr. Alegria, Mondaga ordered him to drive the Volkswagen
Resus in his Volkswagen car to San Roque, Barobo, in going back to Diatagon while Mondaga drove the
Surigao del Sur, but Engr. Resus declined saying that he motorcycle of Legarto. (ibid.)
could not drive them at 12:00 midnight because he [did]
not have enough gasoline and that his service car [was] However, at Diatagon, Mondaga stopped Legarto near
not in good condition to travel in the evening. (TSN, the School of Fisheries. (ibid.) He was ordered to fetch
March 16, 1993, p. 8). But one person, Mondaga, Dr. Resus and bring her to Mondaga for final negotiation.
insisted that the next morning, a vehicle should be (ibid.) There was a threat not to disseminate the
prepared for a trip to San Roque, Barobo, Surigao del information because if he [did], then Legarto's family
Sur. (TSN, March 17, 1993, p. 43) [would] be killed, including himself. (ibid.)

At about 4:45 in the morning of August 20, 1992, He was able to find Dr. Resus at the house of a certain
Mondaga knocked at the door of the clinic. Engr. Resus Nora Gubantes and told her he was ordered to fetch her.
was just busy preparing the vehicle, securing gasoline. Legarto asked Dr. Resus what [was] this incident about
(ibid, p. 44.) Mondaga rode in the vehicle of Engr. Resus and Legarto was told immediately to shut up. (ibid, p. 26)
and met his two companions at Andanan. (ibid.) Legarto asked her of her decision but was told to shut up
again. (ibid.)
Instead of San Roque, the vehicle stopped at Alegria
(TSN, March 16, 1993, p. 11). The three (Mondaga, Dr. Resus rode with him in the Volkswagen car towards
Maluenda and Alex) asked Engr. Resus to go with them. the area near the Fisheries School at St. Catherine,
(ibid.) They went to the mountains and hiked for almost Lianga, Surigao del Sur. (ibid.) At some point Mondaga
two (2) hours between the boundary of Gordon and joined them in the car. Dr. Resus allowed Mondaga to sit
Alegria. (ibid.) When they reached the area, Mondaga at the back while she sat in front seat beside Legarto.
went back to Alegria, leaving behind the three who They talked about the money, and Dr. Resus pleaded
passed the night in the area. (ibid, p. 12) that she [could] only produce P100,000.00. (ibid, p. 27)
Mondaga agreed, provided the motorcycle of Legarto be
Mondaga arrived at around 4:00 in the afternoon at the included. (ibid.) Legarto, at this point, intervened and told
clinic of Dr. Resus. (TSN, March 17, 1993, p. 47) Dr. Dr. Resus not to include in the negotiation his motorcycle
Resus was out, but when Mondaga later came back at because the installment was not yet fully paid. (ibid). Dr.
7:00 in the evening and saw Dr. Resus (ibid, p. 48), he Resus then told him to "just give his motorcycle." (ibid)
demanded the amount of P300,000.00. But since Dr. Then, Mondaga told Dr. Resus that Legarto would be the
Resus had only P10,000.00, Mondaga told her to one who [would] bring the money to Alegria. He agreed
reserve it and he [would] get it the next morning. (ibid., again because Dr. Resus was his boss. (ibid.)
pp. 48-49) After asking for the firearm of Engr. Resus,
(ibid, p. 51) Mondaga demanded to use the motorcycle On August 22, 1992, at 4:00 in the afternoon, Eslao
of Engr. Resus. (ibid.) Dr. Resus said that it was out of Gubantes and his son delivered P136,000.00 to Legarto

197
 AB
plus P200.00 for gasoline (ibid, p. 28). The P36,000.00 other persons. Mondaga ordered Maluenda to stay in the
[was] to be paid as partial payment for his motorcycle. hut and feed these persons. Maluenda in turn retorted
(ibid) that their agreement was to mine for gold, but Mondaga
told him "to just follow my order so that nothing will
When he filed his leave of his [sic] absence, he talked to happen to you, or else I will blast your head and kill your
his Superintendent Virgilio Fernandez and others who family." Inside the hut, Maluenda and Engr. Resus talked
told him he should have filed his leave of absence ahead and planned to escape.
because nobody was detailed at the depot, (ibid, p. 29)
but he told them that, there was an emergency because The next day at around 2:00 in the afternoon, Maluenda,
Engr. Resus was held hostage and he [would] deliver the together with Engr. Resus, left but when they reached
money. (ibid.) Alegria, they met Mondaga. Mondaga approached Engr.
Resus, held his hand and said, do not be afraid because
On his way to Alegria, he met Dr. Resus together with you can go home. Mondaga also told Maluenda not to
her nephew riding a police car (ibid). He was asked by report the matter to the authorities otherwise, they
Dra. Resus where the money [was] but he answered, he [would] all be killed.
brought along with him P100,000.00. (ibid.) Dr. Resus
told him to bring also the P36,000.00 and another Maluenda denied that he was at the clinic of Dra. Resus
P14,000.00 which was about to be given by Dr. Resus. on August 19, 1992. Furthermore, he denied having
(ibid.) However, he advised Dr. Resus that he would received any money from Mondaga. (TSN, November
bring only P100,000.00 because that was what they 24, 1993, pp. 50-59)
[had] agreed upon. (ibid) If Mondaga objects [sic] he
[would] just come back. (ibid.) This was confirmed by Dr. Issue:
Resus' nephew (ibid.) Ruling:
Legarto proceeded to Alegria and subsequently I. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
delivered the money to Mondaga, which resulted [in] the
release of Engr. Resus, together with Maria Abne. (ibid, Considering that the prosecution did not present any
p. 30) Engr. Resus and Maria Abne were brought back evidence to show that the plan to kidnap Engineer Resus
to Lianga, where they met Dr. Resus. Mayor Layno of was hatched as early as June 24, 1992, the fact that
Lianga commented that if not for your driver and Maria Legarto and Mondaga were together during the town
Abne, Engr. Resus [would] not be rescued. (ibid.) Engr. fiesta should not be considered as proof of
Resus and Dr. Resus remained at Lianga, while he and Legarto's direct participation in the crime. Likewise,
Maria Abne proceeded to Diatagon. (ibid.) that Legarto was acquainted with Mondaga does not
prove that the former had a hand in the kidnapping.
On September 18, 1992, Legarto and Maria Abne were
brought to the municipal building to act as witnesses for A principal by indispensable cooperation is defined by
Engr. and Dr. Resus. (ibid, p. 31) However, after Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code thus:
executing his affidavit before the Municipal Judge, he
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered
was arrested just when he went out from the office (ibid,
principals:
p. 31). He was brought to Patin-ay, Agusan del Sur,
where he was detained. (ibid, p. 32) While there, he xxx xxx xxx
wrote a letter to Engr. and Dr. Resus for help. (ibid.) The
letter expressed his sentiment and dismay that in spite of 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
his help, he was included in the case. (ibid, p. 33) He offense by another act without which it would not have
denied having driven Mondaga alias Bobong Gonzaga at been accomplished.
any other time.
Legarto cannot be convicted under this definition
Similarly, Maluenda denies knowledge of Mondaga's because the prosecution failed to allege, much less
plan to commit the said crime. He accompanied the latter prove, any overt act on his part showing direct
to Mahilom only to mine for gold and not to plan, much participation in the kidnapping itself, his participation in
less commit, any crime. He alleges that he guarded the the incident being limited to acts committed after the
victim at the hut only because Mondaga threatened to kill abduction was already consummated. He was not with
him and his family. Through counsel, Maluenda presents the kidnappers (1) when they forcibly solicited money
his own version of the facts, as follows:10 and medicine from the Resus couple, (2) when they
brought the kidnap victim to Alegria, and (3) when
Daniel Maluenda testified that on August 20, 1992 at Mondaga demanded ransom for the victim's release.
around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, he was in his house Together with the Resus housemaid, he accompanied
at Barobo when Raul Mondaga came over. Mondaga Mondaga to the hideout in Alegria only upon Dr. Resus'
told him that he [had] a tunnel in Mahilom and offered request. In short, the prosecution failed to piece together
Maluenda a fifty-fifty proposition to gold mine the tunnel. a clear story as to show Legarto figured in the
Maluenda, who [was] a farmer and at the same time a kidnapping caper.
gold miner, agreed to the proposition.
II. Legarto’s direct participation in the
On August 21, 1992 at around 7:00 o'clock in the kidnapping
morning, Maluenda together with Mondaga proceeded to
Sitio Mahilom. Upon reaching Garden, Tambis, Surigao From the foregoing, it is clear that Legarto's alleged
del Sur, Mondaga tried to give Maluenda a pistol and direct participation in the kidnapping is without factual
grenade but Maluenda questioned Mondaga's purpose basis; it is nothing more than an inference drawn from a
for bringing the same since they were just looking for presumption. And because circumstantial evidence not
gold inside the tunnel. Mondaga in turn told Maluenda to adequately established cannot become the basis of
just follow what he [ordered] so that nothing will happen conviction, such inference cannot be given evidentiary
to him, and that Mondaga [would] not hesitate to kill a weight to support Legarto's conviction as a principal by
person, so Maluenda merely followed Mondaga as he indispensable cooperation.
was afraid.
Engineer Resus merely said that he saw Legarto
Arriving at Mahilom, Mondaga and Maluenda proceeded heading back to Diatagon. He did not witness Maluenda
to a hut where the latter saw Engr. Resus and some and "Alex" on board Legarto's motorcycle or alighting
198
 AB
therefrom; he only saw the two at Andanan waiting for hand to prevent the latter from defending himself
Mondaga and him. In fact, Engineer Resus did not Montealegre used both his hands for his purpose 3 as
actually see Legarto transport Mondaga's companions. Capalad continued stabbing the Victim. 4 While they
were thus grappling, the three fen to the floor and
Hence, the statement that Legarto did so is a conclusion Capalad, freed from Camantigue's grip, rose and
unsupported by Resus' testimony, a mere speculation of scampered toward the door. Camantigue fired and,
the event that might have preceded what Engineer continuing the pursuit outside, fired again. 5 Capalad fled
Resus saw. Its true nature as a conjecture is evident into a dark alley. Camantigue abandoned the chase and
from the averment of the trial court that ". . . they were asked to be brought to a hospital. Capalad was later
conveyed there by Rodrigo Legarto with the use of his found slumped in the alley with a bullet wound in Ms
motorcycle, as he was even encountered on the road on chest. Neither Camantigue nor Capalad survived, both
his return back to Diatagon that morning by Engr. expiring the following day. 6
Resus."
The accused-appellant, for his part, escaped during the
III. Delivering and keeping part of ransom confusion. 7 Having been informed of the incident, Capt.
money is not proof of conspiracy Cipriano Gilera of the Cavite police immediately
The Solicitor General avers that the completes trust of organized a team that went to look for him that very
Mondaga in Legarto, whom the former designated as night. 8 They did not find him in his house then but he
collector of the ransom money, proves the latter's was apprehended in the morning of March 12,1983, on
participation. The trial court, on the same point. board a vehicle bound for Baclaran. He gave his name
as Alegre but later admitted he was the fugitive being
The averments, however, are sufficiently rebutted by sought. 9
Legarto's allegation that, out of loyalty to his former
boss, the participated in the release of the kidnap victim, Dr. Regalado Sosa, reporting on the autopsy of the
not in his detention. The testimony of Engineer Resus — Camantigue's body, testified that death was caused by
that Legarto was at Alegria in order to fetch the former — shock due to massive internal hemorrhage caused by
is cited by the defense. seven stab wounds affecting the heart, lungs, liver,
stomach, pancreas, and diaphragm.10 The weapon
Regarding the P36,000 which he kept, Legarto alleges used was 6" in length and about 2 to 2.5 cm. in width
that this was payment for his motorcycle which was and the blood found on it was analyzed as human.11
taken by Mondaga. He claims that he had initially The stabbing incident was narrated in detail at the trial
refused to give his motorcycle to Mondaga, but was by Abadilla, 12 who was corroborated by Generoso San
prevailed upon by Dr. Resus who told him that she would Juan. 13
replace it.21 Confirming this, Dr. Resus testified that she
told Mrs. Gubantes that the money was payment for On direct examination, Abadilla testified that
Legarto's motorcycle, 22 not his share in the ransom. Montealegre prevented Camantigue from drawing his
Thus, such payment could not rationally constitute pistol while he was being stabbed by Capalad,
evidence of direct participation or of conspiracy in the demonstrating with the aid of court personnel the relative
kidnapping. positions of the three during the incident. 14

3. People vs. Montealegre Issue:

Facts: It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that the Ruling: We agree that there is no evidence to show a
conviction of the accused, who is constitutionally previous plan to kill Regino Bautista. The whole incident
presumed innocent, depends upon the strength of the happened because the accused came upon Bautista and
prosecution and not the weakness of the defense. Mallabo fishing within or near the fishpond enclosure of
Unfortunately for the accused in this case, his Carlo Aquino which was under the care of Vicente
prosecution for murder with assault upon a person in Cercano.
authority, undoubtedly already strong, was made even But for a collective responsibility among the herein
stronger by the defense itself. accused to be established, it is not necessary or
As the trial court * which convicted him saw it, the crime essential that there be a previous plan or agreement to
imputed to Napoleon Montealegre was committed as commit the assault; it is sufficient that at the time of the
follows: aggression all the accused by their acts manifested a
common intent or desire to attack Bautista and Mallabo,
At about 11:30 in the evening of March 11, 1983, while so that the act of one accused became the act of all.
Edmundo Abadilia was eating at the Meding's
Restaurant in Cavite City, he detected the smell of Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it
marijuana smoke coming from a nearby table. Intending can be inferred from the acts of the appellants. It is
to call a policeman, he quietly went outside and saw Pfc. enough that, at the time the offense was committed,
Renato Camantigue in his car whom he hailed to report participants had the same purpose and were united in its
the matter. After parking his vehicle, Camantigue joined execution; as may be inferred from the attendant
Abadilla in the restaurant and soon thereafter the two circumstances.
smelled marijuana smoke from the table occupied by If it be proved that two or more persons aimed by their
Vicente Capalad and the accused-appellant. acts towards accomplishment of the same unlawful
Camantigue then approached the two and collared both object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
of them, saying "Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?' Forcing apparently independent, were in fact connected and
them up, he asked the waitress ff she knew them but the cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
waitress said she did not. 1 Then the mayhem began. association and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy
While Camantigue was holding the two, Montealegre may be inferred though no actual meeting among them
with this right hand and Capalad with his left hand, to concert is proven. A conspiracy only be entered into
Capalad suddenly and surreptitiously pulled out a knife after the commencement of overt acts leading to the
from a scabbard tucked in the right side of his waist and consummation of the crime. 31
started stabbed Camantigue in the back. 2 Camantigue 4. People vs. Madali
let loose Montealegre to draw the gun from his holster
but Montealegre, thus released, restrained Camantigue's Facts:
199
 AB
Version of the Prosecution Roman Galicia (Galicha) and the Madali spouses who
were then entering their gate. 15
According to the prosecution, said crimes stemmed from
an altercation between the son of the Madali spouses, Merlinda Gasang * was at home when she heard an
Ramon, and the group of Felix Gasang, who was twenty explosion. Her father, Cipriano, was also at home then
years old when he was killed. 3 It appears that on but after the second shot, he went out of the house
October 26, 1979, Felix figured in a fist-fight with towards the direction of the source of the gunfire. There
someone who was a friend of Ramon. The latter was a minute interval between the first and the second
interceded and mauled Felix with a "chako" 4 One of shots but only a second elapsed between the second
Felix's companions then was Agustin Reloj. 5 and the third shots. The fourth shot came about two
minutes later. 16
The following day, the police summoned Felix to the
municipal building. Felix's mother, Desamparada Cipriano was "beyond the gate" of the Madali residence
Gasang, went with him. 6 At the police station, Ricarte when he was shot by Madali. Merlinda was around three
Madali, a police officer, angrily scolded Felix and his meters from her father.17 She saw Annie focused her
cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, and told them that because flashlight at Cipriano and she heard Annie say, "Yara pa,
they were "very brave", he would put them in jail for yara, pa, barila" meaning "Here comes another one,
twelve hours. Madali added after asking about Felix's here comes another one, shoot." 18 That was when the
age that he would "sow bullets" in the body of Felix. 7 fourth explosion occurred and Merlinda heard her father
According to witness policeman Aristeo Fetalino, Madali exclaim that he was hit. Merlinda felt that she was also
also uttered, "Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala" which hit. 19 She did not fall to the ground because she was
means, what you need is a bullet embedded in you. 8 able to take hold of the wooden fence. 20 She saw both
Madali's father-in-law, Agustin Mortel, who arrived at the her brother Felix and Agustin lying flat on the ground
police station, agreed with Madali that Felix and his with the latter's head turned to one side. 21
group must be "sown with bullets" to eradicate them. 9
Another group mate of Felix was detained at the Merlinda shouted for help. Romeo Manes came and
municipal jail but Felix was sent home with his mother. brought her to the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital. 22
10 She did not notice anymore where Ricarte Madali was at
that time because she was looking towards the direction
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, of their house. She saw her mother running to her. 23
1979, Felix and his cousin, Agustin Reloj, went home
together from the town plaza. Their houses were located Desamparada Gasang was washing the dishes after
near each other in Sitio Marawi, barangay Cagbo-aya, supper when she heard the first shot. After the fourth
San Agustin, Romblon. shot, she became apprehensive because a policeman
was mad at her family. 24 She proceeded to where she
Felix and Agustin parted ways at the Marawi bridge. heard the gunbursts and she met her daughter Merlinda
Felix dropped by the store of Coroy Mangao to buy who informed her that she was shot by Madali and that
cigarettes while Agustin proceeded home. Around fifteen she saw Annie focused a flashlight on her. Then
meters from the house of Ricarte Madali, the latter Desamparada saw her husband crawling on the ground.
accosted, him, held him by his arm and said, "So you are She asked him to stand up but he could not do so.
here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been Cipriano told her, "Ging iwagan ako ni Annie Madali cag
waiting for you. I have been watching for you for three ging baril ako ni Ricarte Madali" (Annie focused a light
nights already. 11 Then Madali dragged Agustin towards on me and Ricarte Madali shot me.) She then went back
the gate of his (Madali's) house. When Agustin asked to her daughter and shouted for help.
Madali why he was dragging him, Madali said that the
reason was because Agustin helped in fighting his son. Injuries sustained:

As one of Agustin's feet stepped over the knee-high a. Cipriano – gunshot wound at the lower right
fence at the gate of the Madali residence, he was quadrant of the abdomen along the mammary
clubbed by Annie Madali with a piece of wood. Annie line (bullet followed an obliquely downward
struck him first on the left shoulder and would have given course penetrating the small and large intestines
him another blow had not Agustin freed himself from and the urinary bladder, and exited at the middle
Madali's hold. Annie landed that blow on Madali instead. of the left buttock)
12 b. Felix - gunshot wound at the right second
intercostal space within the mid-clavicular line of
Agustin was looking back as he ran away when Madali the chest. The bullet veered backwards towards
shot him. He was hit below his right hip. He fell to the the left hitting the right lung, its blood vessels
ground and did not get up fearing that Madali might and the fourth cervical vertebra; second gunshot
shoot him again. Agustin was still lying down on the wound was at the right side of the abdomen at
ground with his eyes focused on Madali when Felix about the level of the navel and within the right
Gasang arrived. He saw Annie beamed her flashlight at anterior axillary line. The bullet hit the
Felix and she said, "Here comes another." 13 subcutaneous tissues and exited at the posterior
axillary line
Agustin saw Felix raising his hands as Annie focused her c. Merlinda Gasang – gunshot wound at the
flashlight on Felix. Felix told Madali that he would not anterior upper third portion of her right leg with
fight with him but then Madali shot Felix twice. Felix fell no exit wound and which would incapacitate her
to the ground. Madali was still near the gate of his house for ten to fifteen days 28 However, she stayed
when Cipriano Gasang arrived. Annie beamed her for treatment at the emergency hospital in San
flashlight at Cipriano and she said, "Here comes, here Agustin for 39 days;
comes another, fire upon him. 14 Madali shot Cipriano d. Agustin Reloj – gunshot wound at the glutael
who fell to the ground. Merlinda Gasang, who was with region of the right thigh. The bullet entered the
her father Cipriano, clung to the fence nearby and lateral aspect of the upper third of the right thigh
shouted that she was also hit. Then Desamparada and exited at the posterior aspect of the gluteus
Gasang arrived and shouted for help. One Romeo maximus muscle. The attending physician
Manes came and carried away Merlinda. Agustin slowly certified that Agustin's injury would incapacitate
stood up and as he walked towards his house, he saw him for seven to nine days

200
 AB
Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police. calling out his name, "Carte, Carte!" Then she heard a
32 He handed his .38 caliber service revolver to the gunshot and the person holding a club who grappled
policemen who arrived at the scene of the crime and with her husband ran out of the premises.
they noted that there were only two remaining bullets in
the revolver. 33 He was placed under technical arrest by Annie heard her husband say, "Pulis ini, ayaw maglapit"
the provincial commander of the Philippine meaning "This is a policeman do not come near." After
Constabulary. 34 that, she heard three more gunshots. The two who came
rushing inside their premises scampered away and out
Version of the Defense of their fence. She could not recognize the three
intruders. Madali then walked towards her and asked her
According to Madali, at around 9:00 o'clock in the to call the police. Annie went inside their sala and told
evening of October 31, 1979, he and his family were her daughter Agnes to summon the police. 38
about to sleep when a stone was hurled at their house.
His wife said that it could have been a stray stone. But Policeman Numeriano Galang who heard the gun
then, three other stones landed on the GI sidings, and reports, met Agnes on his way to sitio Marawi. When he
the lawanit and bamboo walls of their house. Madali arrived at the Madali residence, he found Madali with his
went to their porch where he noticed a person crouching face and jacket smeared with mud and with a swollen
near their gabi plants. He could not identify the person forehead. 39 Galang asked Madali what happened but
because of the fog so he went inside their room and he did not put his investigation in writing. 40 At the yard,
dressed up in his fatigue trousers and jacket. He went he found stones, two slippers and a nightstick. 41 He did
down the house and noticed that there was no one in the not find bloodstains in the yard because it was drizzling.
gabi plants anymore. 42 Neither did he find bloodstains outside the yard
because he inspected only the areas surrounding the
Madali was behind their kitchen and about to go back to Madali house. 43
his house when someone hit his left shoulder. The
person struck him again but he was able to catch the Policeman Antonio Morales arrived at the scene of the
club aimed at him and strike the person with his crime with two other policemen. He found Felix Gasang
nightstick. Madali was about to give him another blow lying flat on his belly about one foot from the gate. 44 To
with his nightstick but the person caught it. They tried to identify him, they turned Felix's body face up and found
get each other's club. that his right hand was holding a knife. 45 Later, that
knife was turned over to police investigator Pfc. Ernesto
They were in that position when Madali's foot stepped Solano. 46 The other victim (Cipriano) was found about
into a low canal, causing him to fall down flat on his five to six meters from the body of Felix. 47 Like Galang,
back. The intruder fell with him and landed on Madali's Morales saw pieces of stones which were different from
stomach. The person shouted at someone in the vicinity the stones found in Madali's yard which were mere
what the latter was tarrying about. As Madali tried to get corals or "boga," two pairs of slippers and the gabi plants
up, he heard his wife call, "Carte, Carte." Just then he which appeared to have been trampled upon. 48
kicked the intruder on the stomach and the latter fell to
the ground. Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in finding
Annie Mortel Madali guilty as principal by direct
Madali hurriedly stood up, pulled his gun and fired at the participation.
intruder. He noticed two other persons approaching him.
One person had a club and the other had what looked Ruling: Nevertheless, the Court finds that proof beyond
like a knife. He warned them, "This is a policeman. Do reasonable doubt has not been established as to the
not come near." One of the persons proceeded to strike existence of conspiracy between the Madali spouses.
him and Madali was hit on his forehead by the man with While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy as
the club. Madali in turn dealt him with a blow by swinging it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which
back his left forearm. The man with a club fell down. may logically be inferred the existence of a common
design among the accused to commit the offense(s)
When the man with the knife was about to stab him, charged, the evidence to prove the same must be
Madali fired his gun at him. As that man was still closing positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a
in on him, Madali shot him again. The man with the knife facile devise by which an accused may be ensnared and
retreated to the gate and fell just outside of it. kept within the penal fold. 75 With this and the principle
After firing two shots, Madali turned sideward and saw that in criminal prosecution, doubts must be resolved in
the man with the club about to strike him. So, Madali favor of the accused, as guides, the Court rules that
shot him. The man walked away. Madali later identified the liability of Annie Mortel Madali with respect to
the man crouching amidst their gabi plants as Agustin the crimes committed herein, is only that of an
Reloj. 37 accomplice.

Annie Mortel Madali corroborated her husband's Annie's participation in the shooting of the victims
testimony from the stoning of their house until he consisted of beaming her flashlight at them and warning
dressed up, got his gun and nightstick, and went out of her husband of the presence of other persons in the
the house. When she heard Madali opening the door to vicinity. By beaming her flashlight at a victim, Annie
the stairs, Annie got up and went to their balcony to assisted her husband in taking a good aim. However,
peep. She saw her husband going around their house in such assistance merely facilitated the commission of the
a clockwise direction. When he was near their kitchen, felonious acts of shooting. Considering that, according to
Annie saw him grappling with someone over the both of the Madali spouses, "it was not so dark nor too
possession of a club. Her husband and his protagonist bright that night or that "brightness and darkness were
fell into a canal, trampling the gabi plants. She heard the equally of the same intensity. Ricarte Madali could have
man say, "Hay, naga tanga pa kamo dira!" meaning nevertheless accomplished his criminal acts without
"What are you still waiting for!" Annie's cooperation and assistance.

Annie then saw two persons rushing inside their Neither may Annie's shouts of "here comes, here comes
premises. One person was holding a club while the other another, shoot" be considered as having incited Ricarte
one had something which he appeared to thrust forward. to fire at the victims to make Annie a principal by
Losing her composure, Annie warned her husband by inducement. There is no proof that those inciting words
had great dominance and influence over Madali as to
201
 AB
become the determining cause of the crimes. 78 The surrendering his passbook and withdrawing the balance
rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the shots 79 of his deposit.
eliminated the necessity of encouraging words such as
those uttered by Annie. Thereafter, the bank's accountant and interest
bookkeeper discovered a discrepancy between the
The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was interest reconciliation balance and the subsidiary ledger
being dragged by Madali to their yard does not make her balance. The interest bookkeeper could not locate the
a principal by direct participation. Annie's act, being posting reconciliation and the proof reconciliation. He
previous to Madali's act of shooting Agustin, was actually also notice that Account No. 6701-0160 in the name of
not indispensable to the crime committed against Benjamin Abejuela reflected four (4) large deposits on
Agustin. 80 various dates from August 3, 1978 to August 23, 1978,
totaling P176,145.25, but the deposits slips thereof could
5. Abejuela vs. People not be located.
Facts: Petitioner Benjamin Abejuela, a businessman After further examination of the bank records, the
engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of hand manager, accountant and interest bookkeeper were
tractors and other agricultural equipment, had a savings convinced that the irregularities were caused by Balo
deposit with Banco Filipino, Tacloban Branch. Sometime who was the savings bookkeeper at that time and who
in April or May 1978, petitioner was befriended by had access to Abejuela savings account ledger. They
Glicerio Balo, Jr., an employee of Banco Filipino in the concluded that Balo was able to manipulate the ledger,
same Tacloban Branch. On several occasions, petitioner by posting the fictitious deposits after banking hours
Abejuela and Balo would dine together, go to nightclubs when the posting machine was already closed and
or have drinking sprees.2 They became close friends. cleared by the bank accountant.
Balo even became the godfather of Abejuela's
daughter.3 Moreover, Balo offered Abejuela financial The bank officials confronted Balo, who feigned
assistance in the latter's welding business, claiming that ignorance and initially denied the accusations, but later
he was expecting a large sum of money out of the admitted having posted the false deposits. Petitioner
insurance policy of his late father. Abejuela was also implicated because he was the owner
of the passbook used by Balo in accomplishing his
On August 3, 1978, Balo went to Abejuela's welding fraudulent scheme. On December 5,1978, an information
shop to borrow the latter's passbook. Abejuela was was filed against Glicerio Balo, Jr. and Benjamin
surprised and thought that it was not possible for Balo to Abejuela for the crime of estafa thru falsification of
use his passbook. Balo showed Abejuela some checks commercial documents.5 Separately arraigned, both
purporting to be the proceeds of his father's insurance pleaded "not guilt to the crime charged6 Trial followed.
policy. He wanted to deposit the checks in Abejuela's
account with Banco Filipino. Abejuela then suggested Issue: Whether or not Abejuela can be convicted as an
that Balo open his own account. However, Balo accomplice in the crime of estafa through falsification of
explained that he was prohibited from opening an commercial document.
account with Banco Filipino since he was employed with
that bank as a savings bookkeeper. Abejuela advised Ruling: We decree the acquittal of Abejuela because we
Balo to open an account instead with another bank but seriously doubt whether he had knowledge of the plan of
Balo insisted that he wanted the checks deposited with Balo to defraud Banco Filipino by means of posting false
Banco Filipino so that he could facilitate their immediate deposits and withdrawing these later.
encashment as well as avail himself of some privileges. In a number of cases decided by this Court, it has been
Balo assured Abejuela that there was nothing wrong in held that knowledge of the criminal intention of the
allowing him to use his passbook and even reassured principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable
Abejuela that he would accompany him to the bank to as an accomplice.
make the deposit.
Knowledge of the criminal intent of the principal in this
Accepting Balo's explanations and assurances Abejuela case, (Glicerio Balo, Jr.) is essential in order that
entrusted his passbook to Balo. On August 8,1978, Balo petitioner Abejuela can be convicted as an accomplice in
returned Abejuela's passbook where a deposit in the the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial
amount of P20,000.00 was already reflected. Once document. To be convicted as an accomplice, there
again, Balo assured Abejuela that there was nothing must be cooperation in the execution of the offense by
wrong with the deposit, and stated that he just deposited previous or simultaneous acts. However, the cooperation
one of his checks. On the same, day Balo requested which the law punishes is the assistance rendered
Abejuela himself to withdraw, in the former's behalf, knowingly or intentionally, which assistance cannot be
money from his account with Banco Filipino. Again with said to exist without the prior cognizance of the offense
assurances from Balo, Abejuela reluctantly agreed. He intended to be committed.
went to Banco Filipino and withdrew the amount of
P15,000.00 which he gave to Balo at a restaurant called After carefully weighing the arguments of both parties as
Felisa's Cafe. well as taking into consideration the evidence on record,
we are inclined to believe that petitioner Abejuela
Balo's practice of depositing and withdrawing money was completely unaware of the malevolent scheme
using Abejuela's passbook continued for quite some of Balo. From Balo's own admissions, it was he who
time. During the month of August 1978, the account of deceived Abejuela through sweet talk, assurances,
Abejuela with Banco Filipino reflected a total deposits of drinking sprees and parties and cajoled him into giving in
P176,145.00 and a total withdrawal of P175,607.96. to his requests. Furthermore, during that time, nobody
In the meantime, Abejuela borrowed P20,000.00 from would have questioned Balo's source of money and
Balo, payable within 90 days from August 9, 1978. But since he had a perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance proceeds
feeling apprehensive over Balo's constant use of his of his later father. When Balo showed Abejuela some
passbook, Abejuela decided to pay his loan on August checks purporting to be his father's insurance proceeds,
31, 1978 by borrowing P10,000.00 from his father and Abejuela was hoodwinked into believing that Balo indeed
taking the other P10,000.00 from his business profits.4 had money. Balo's request to borrow Abejuela's
Abejuela also closed his account with Banco Filipino by passbook in order to facilitate the encashment of the
checks seemed reasonable enough, considering that
202
 AB
they were close friends and "compadres", Abejuela's Dominador Estrella, a market collector, was also killed.
acquiescence to Balo's overtures is understandable. 'Those who were injured were Pat. Armando Ocampo,
Exequiel Manalus Jose Fabian, Rosalina Fuerten and
Furthermore, the court takes judicial notice of the Pedro de la Cruz.
practice of banks in allowing anybody to deposit in an
account even without the owner's passbook, as long as The Prudential Bank and Trust Company branch office
the account number is known. Thus, even without located at the North hay Boulevard, Navotas, Rizal, the
Abejuela's passbook, the false deposits could still have object of the bloody mission, has an unusual banking
been posted by Balo in the savings account ledger of hours. It opens at midnight and closes at 8:00 in the
Abejuela. After all, the ledger is the record of the bank morning. The bank has ten employees, more or less,
reflecting the transactions of the depositor, while the including a security guard. It has two cages or
passbook is the record of the depositor. More often than compartments for tellers. One cage was under the care
not, it is the ledger which is more accurate and up-to- of Melvin Domingo and the other one under the care of
date. This is the reason why depositors have their Alejandro San Juan. At around 12:30 a.m. of June 14,
passbooks updated for unrecorded transactions like 1966, Cesar Reyes, assistant cashier of the bank, was
interests, checks deposited beyond clearance cut-off near the cage of Domingo when two men entered the
time and bank charges. bank asking that their money be changed. Domingo
refused, saying that they had no small denominations.
In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution Suddenly, three men armed with long guns barged in
clearly points at Balo as the one who had posted the and fired at the ceiling and the wall of the bank. They
bogus deposits in Abejuela's ledger. He was also the ordered the employees to lie down, face downward and
one who wisely manipulated petitioner Abejuela in order then demanded the key to the vault. When Reyes
that the fictitious deposits could be placed at his Balo answered that they do not have the key, the armed men
disposal, Thus, when Balo requested Abejuela to aimed their guns at the vault and fired upon it until its
withdraw the amount he had earlier placed in the latter's doors were opened. They entered the vault and found
account, Abejuela had no choice but to give in. He that they could not get anything as the compartments
actually believed that the money was really owned by inside the said vault were locked. Not being able to get
Balo and he did not want Balo to think that he was anything from the vault, the armed men went to the two
interested in it. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to teller cages and took whatever they could lay their hands
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Abejuela had on. Not long afterwards, the men left, carrying with them
knowledge of the fraudulent scheme of Balo. The most the sum of P10,439.95.
that could be attributed to Abejuela was his negligence in
lending his passbook and his utter gullibility. Just beside the bank was a police outpost. On the night
in question, Pat. Nicolas Antonio was in the outpost,
I. In re: Civil liability together with Sgt. Aguilos, Pats. Pangan, Burgos, Rosal
Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal Ocampo and Cpl. Evangelists. were on duty watching
where the same is based on reasonable doubt as only the fish landing. Suddenly, Antonio said, at around 1:30
preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases, or a.m., he heard a burst which he believed came from a
where the court has expressly declared that the liability Thompson. He said he saw a man pointing a Thompson
of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature. upwards while he was in front of the banca Afterwards,
Antonio said, he heard another burst coming from the
It has been satisfactorily established that Banco Filipino same direction. Antonio and his companions then went
suffered damage in the amount of P176,145.25 to the middle of the road and again they heard shots,
representing the fictitious deposits posted by Glicerio and this time they were successive, coming from their
Balo, Jr. and systematically withdrawn through the left. Antonio could not see who was firing the shots.
passbook of petitioner Abejuela. Although Abejuela, was Suddenly, he said, he saw one of this companions Cpl.
unaware of the criminal workings in the mind of Balo, he Evangelista topple down. He saw also Dominador
nevertheless unwittingly contributed to their eventual Estrella sitting down folding his stomach. They were both
consummation by recklessly entrusting his passbook to felled by the shots coming from the left side of the bank.
Balo and by signing the withdrawal slips. Abejuela failed Antonio told Ocampo to go beside the outpost and held
to exercise prudence and care. Therefore, he must be Sgt. Aguilos by the arm. Sgt. Aguilos, however,
held civilly accountable. collapsed and fell down. He was hit. Later on, Antonio
said, he went to the outpost and told Pat. Ocampo to go
6. People vs. Doble
too. He said that from the outpost he heard some more
Facts: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, ten (10) men, shots. Then he saw Ocampo hit in the thigh. After the
almost all of them heavily armed with pistols, carbines firing ceased, Antonio saw his wounded companions
and Thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor placed in a vehicle, together with Evangelista and
banca and proceeded to Navotas, Rizal. "Their mission: Aguilos who were already dead. Later on, he said he
to rob the Navotas Branch of the Prudential Bank and saw Sgt. Alcala, a member of the PC, lying prostrate in
Trust Company. Once in Navotas and taking advantage the ground already dead. (pp. 83-85, Rollo).
of the darkness of the night, eight (8) men disembarked
Issue: Whether or not Doble is criminally liable.
from the banca and proceeded to the beach in the
direction of the branch bank. Within a few minutes, shots Ruling:
were heard throwing the people around in panic. As
confusion reigned, the people ran in different directions I. In re: Simeon Doble’s criminal liability
scampering for safety. As time went on, the shots grew We, therefore, find no culpable participation of Simeon
in intensity. As the commotion died down, the eight men Doble in the commission of the crime, for, indeed, by his
returned to their banca, still fully armed and some of physical condition alone, he could not in any way be of
them carrying what looked like "bayongs". "They help to the malefactors in the pursuit of their criminal
boarded the waiting motor banca and sped away. As a design, nor could he have been desired by the latter to
result of the shooting, many people got killed and some be one of them.
injured. Among those who were killed were agents of the
law, like Sgt. Alejandro Alcala of the Philippine The only link between Simeon and the crime is his house
Constabulary, Sgt. Eugenio Aguilos and Cpl. Teofilo having been used as the meeting place of the
Evangelista of the Navotas Police Department. malefactors for their final conference before proceeding
203
 AB
to Navotas to rob the Prudential Bank branch thereat. He Romaquin, for his part, appears not to be known to the
did not join them because of a 5-year-old foot injury principal malefactors still at large, to be asked to join
which would make him only a liability, not one who can actively in the conspiracy.
help in the devilish venture. To the malefactors he was
most unwanted to join them. If they met at his house it The amount received by Romaquin who alone was given
was only because it was near the landing place of the money by the malefactors in the sum of P441.00,
banca, and so he invited them to his house while waiting indicate that the latter did not consider appellant as their
for the banca to arrive. His mere presence in his house confederate in the same character as those constituting
where the conspirators met, and for merely telling them the band of robbers. The sum given to Romaquin could
that he could not join them because of his foot injury, very well represent only the rental of his banca, and for
and will just wait for them; evidently as a mere gesture of the cooperation he extended to the malefactors, which,
politeness in not being able to join them in their criminal by no means, is an indispensable one. Cresencio, on the
purpose, for he could not be of any help in the other hand, was not given any part of the loot. It was
attainment thereof, and also to avoid being suspected only Romaquin who gave him P4 1.00, clearly not what
that he was against their vicious plan for which they may should represent his share if he were a full-fledged ally
harm him, Simeon is by no means a co-conspirator, not or confederate.
having even taken active part in the talks among the The apprehension of the malefactors that upon realizing
malefactors in his house. the full impact of their vicious misdeeds, Romaquin might
speed away from the scene in fear of being implicated,
as shown by the measure they had taken to prevent his
II. In re: Crescenscio Doble & Romaquin’s escape, is further proof that Romaquin was not
criminal liability considered a co-conspirator, who is one who should not
be looked upon with mistrust.
The circumstances pointed out would not make
appellants liable as co-principals in the crime charged. At As to Romaquin, while he testified that the malefactors
the most their liability would be that of mere gave a gun to Cresencio with which the latter would
accomplices. prevent Romaquin from fleeing away from the scene,
evidently to show that he never joined in the criminal
An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined purpose, and that all his acts were in fear of bodily harm
in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, cooperates in and therefore, not voluntary, the measure taken by the
the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous malefactors to prevent his escape, could have been just
acts (Art. 18, Revised Penal Code). There must be a an extra precaution, lest he would be stricken with fear in
Community of unlawful purpose between the principal the course of the commission of the crime specially if
and accomplice and assistance knowingly and attended by shootings as it was really so. If it is true that
intentionally given (U.S. vs. Belco 11 Phil. 526), to he never voluntarily made the trip with knowledge of the
supply material and moral aid in the consummation of planned robbery, and with Cresencio saying that he
the offense and in as efficacious way (People vs. returned the gun given him with which to prevent
Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38). In this case, appellants' Romaquin from speeding away, Romaquin could have
cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for tried a get-away, as should have been his natural
abduction which makes the driver a mere accomplice, as impulse had he not joined in the criminal design. His act
held in People vs. Batalan 45 Phil. 573, citing the case of of hiding the money he received from the malefactors,
U.S. vs. Lagmay, G.R. No. L-15009. and repainting his boat, all attest to his guilty conscience
a. In re: Crescencio Doble’s criminal liability arising from the act of cooperation he knowingly
extended to the principal culprit to achieve their criminal
Cresencio's consenting to look for a banca, however, did purpose.
not necessarily make him a co-conspirator.
7. People vs. Doctolero
Neither would it appear that Joe Intsik wanted to draft
Cresencio into his band of malefactors that would Facts:
commit the robbery more than just asking his help to Version of the Prosecution
look for a banca. Joe Intsik had enough men all with
arms and weapons to perpetrate the crime, the It is undisputed that on the evening of November 8,
commission of which needed planning and men to 1970, Epifania Escosio and Lolita de Guzman were killed
execute the plan with full mutual confidence of each in the house of Marcial Sagun in Sitio Binday,
other, which is not shown with respect to appellants by municipality of San Fabian, province of Pangasinan,
the way they were asked to look and provide for a banca where they were living. Jonathan Oviedo, 1 1/2 year old
just a few hours before the actual robbery. child of Lolita de Guzman, was on the same occasion,
slightly injured while being fed on the breast of his
For his part, Cresencio testified that while he was given mother. On the road, a few meters from the house of
a gun with which to cover Romaquin who might escape, Marcial Sagun, Marcelo Doctolero, 81 years old, was
he returned the gun because he did not know how to use fatally injured. He was taken to the Pangasinan
it, and so one of the malefactors was left near the beach Provincial Hospital but he died on the way. . . .
to prevent appellants fleeing from the scene of the crime
with banca. In his statement, however, (Exh. M, p. 35, The evidence for the prosecution tend to show that the
Record of Exhibits), he refused to accept the gun, but three (3) accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, all
they gave it just the same, and he received it. surnamed Doctolero, were responsible for the death(s)
of Epifania Escosio and Lolita de Guzman, and in
The complicity of appellant Cresencio is further shown inflicting physical injuries to (sic) Jonathan Oviedo. And
by his note (Exhibit "H", p. 26, Record of Exhibits) immediately thereafter, with their father and co-accused,
addressed to Romaquin asking him not to reveal to the Antonio Doctolero, they hacked Marcelo Doctolero, with
police the names of their companions. He went to their bolos which caused the death of the latter.
Romaquin and asked for money which the latter gave in
the sum of P41.00, as if to show that he had helped in The principal witnesses for the prosecution are: Marcial
some material way to deserve a share in the loot. Sagun, his wife Maria Sagun, and Paciencia Sagun-
Diamoy. According to Marcial Sagun, at about 6:30 in
b. In re: Romaquin’s criminal liability
204
 AB
the evening on November 8, 1970, he and his wife, latter unsheathed his bolo and boloed Ludovico with a
Maria Oviedo-Sagun and Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo downward swing. He parried the bolo with his left hand
(sister-in-law of Maria Oviedo-Sagun) were on their way (p. 9, ibid), but he was hurt in the process (p. 10, ibid).
home to Barrio Binday. They came from the field where
they bundled their harvests. Upon reaching a crossing of At that juncture, Marcial Sagun unsheathed his bolo and
the road in Bo. Binday they met the accused Ludovico Ludovico Doctolero also unsheathed his bolo. They
Doctolero who, without warning and without cause or watched each other's step (p. 10, ibid) with the two
reason, held the left shoulder of Marcial Sagun with his women, Lolita de Guzman and Maria Oviedo, hitting the
left hand and struck Marcial Sagun with a bolo. The latter back of Ludovico with a wood (sic). The latter ignored
evaded that blow and wrestled with Ludovico Doctolero them, as his eyes were towards Marcial Sagun and his
for possession of the bolo of the latter. Lolita de brother-in-law, Antonio Oviedo (p. 11, ibid).
Guzman-Oviedo became frightened when Ludovico Realizing that he could not afford to fight both Marcial
Doctolero and Marcial Sagun were wrestling for the Sagun and Antonio Oviedo, Ludovico tried to escape by
possession of the bolo of the former, so she ran away in boloing Maria Oviedo, whom he hit at the back. He
the direction of the house in Sitio Binday. retreated and then run (sic) away, with Marcial Sagun
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy (sister of Marcial Sagun) and Antonio Oviedo throwing stones at him. (p. 12, ibid).
testified that while she was cleaning palay in the yard of Ludovico went to the house of his father, Antonio
her uncle, the deceased Marcelo Doctolero, she saw the Doctolero. The latter was eating his meal, together with
accused, Ludovico. Conrado and Virgilio (all surnamed his small children upstairs, while accused-appellant,
Doctolero) throw stones at the house of Marcial Sagun. Conrado Doctolero was in the kitchen downstairs also
While throwing stones, Ludovico allegedly shouted for eating his meal, when Ludovico arrived (p. 13, ibid; p. 4,
the man in the house to come out. Paciencia Sagun- hearing June 8, 1971-Salazar).
Diamoy went towards the house of Marcial Sagun and
saw the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, He told his father that he was wounded and asked him to
coming down from the house going towards her. She look after his children as he might meet something bad
told them: "Why can't you be patient and forget?" But that night. He did not enter the house anymore: he was
she was asked not to interfere. At about that time, only until the door. Then he ran away. His father asked
Marcelo Doctolero, half-brother of Antonio Doctolero, him what happened, but he did not answer anymore. (p.
and uncle of the three accused was going towards the 14, ibid, p. 4, Salazar).
house of Marcial Sagun, when he met the three
He ran towards his house, taking a short cut by passing
accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio. Marcelo
through the house of his cousins, Juanito and Cresencia
Doctolero told them why they can't be patient and forget,
Doctolero. As he came near his house, he saw the
but the three accused replied "Vulva of your mother, we
house of Marcial Sagun, who was also his immediate
will also kill you." Then they struck Marcelo Doctolero
neighbor. His blood boiled. He went to Marcial's house
several times with their bolos. And when their father
calling him to get down. When Marcial did not get down,
Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo
he peeped and noticed that Marcial Sagun was not
Doctolero with a bolo on the head. Marcelo Doctolero fell
there. So he went upstairs to ask Epifania Escosio, who
and then all the accused ran away.
told him that Marcial Sagun went towards the South. He
The testimony of Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy is sought to was about to leave when the old woman hit him at the
be corroborated by the testimony of Maria Oviedo-Sagun back of his neck, causing him to see darkness and (he)
(wife of Marcial Sagun) who declared that while she was boloed her several times (p. 13-19, tsn, hearing,
in the house of Marcelo Doctolero, to whom she reported February 17, 1971).
the incident between Ludovico Doctolero and Marcial
Ludovico went downstairs to look for Marcial Sagun. He
Sagun, she saw the three accused Ludovico, Conrado
stayed a while at the trunk of the buri tree, thinking that
and Virgilio throwing stones at their house and called to
he might be ambushed. Here, he did not notice anyone
all the men in the house to come out. She was about to
coming from the south or the east. So he tried to move,
go to their house to get her children but she saw the
but as he did so, he noticed someone approaching him
three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio going up.
coming from the yard of Marcelo Doctolero. As it was
So she hid behind the palm tree, a few meters away
dark he did not recognize the man and thinking that it
from their house. While there, she heard Epifania
was Marcial Sagun, he met him. It turned out however,
Escosio (her adopted mother) shouting at her, saying
that the man was Marcelo Doctolero. So he returned the
"Enieng, your children." Then she saw the three accused
bolo he was holding in its scabbard. He asked Marcelo
coming down from the house, going towards the road
Doctolero where Marcial Sagun was, but Marcelo
where they met Marcelo Doctolero whom they also
Doctolero answered him, "because of your foolishness"
boloed several times until he fell. When Antonio
and hit him on the shoulder, but in the process of
Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero with
evading the blow, Ludovico Doctolero was hit at the
a bolo. Then they all left.3
back. As Marcelo Doctolero tried to hit him for a second
Version of the Defense time he took a side step and took hold of the stick and
pulled it away, causing Marcelo Doctolero to fall on his
On November 8, 1970, at about 6:00 o'clock in the knees. He was able to get the club, but Marcelo
evening, Ludovico Doctolero met at the crossing of Bo. Doctolero unsheathed Ms bolo. When the latter insisted
Banana and Binday road, San Fabian, Pangasinan. on unsheathing his bolo, Ludovico Doctolero boloed him
Marcial Sagun, who was with his wife, Maria Oviedo, many times. (pp. 19-26, ibid).
Antonio Oviedo and the latter's wife, Lolita de Guzman.
Antonio Oviedo is the brother-in-law of Marcial Sagun, Issue:
he being the brother of Maria Oviedo. (tsn, p. 7 hearing,
Ruling: We have held that where one goes with the
February 17, 1971-Somera). Marcial Sagun and
principals, and in staying outside of the house while the
company were on their way home. (p. 8, Ibid).
others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the former
Ludovico greeted Marcial Sagun: "Where have you been effectively supplied the criminals with material and moral
cousin." (p. 8, ibid) He noticed, however, Antonio Oviedo aid, making him guilty as an accomplice.
holding his bolo on his waist. So, he asked his cousin
Marcial Sagun why Antonio Oviedo was like that. The
205
 AB
Appellants contend that the murders occurred as a four (4) other passengers. He knew the victim by name
consequence of a sudden thought or impulse, thus who was a resident of the subdivision. He recognized
negating a common criminal design in their minds. This and identified two of the passengers as Kenneth
pretension must be rejected since one can be an Florendo and Roderick Garcia, both familiar in the
accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime subdivision.
intended by the principal provided he was aware that it
was an illicit act.24 Cacao did not at first notice anything unusual inside the
car while it passed by him, but then he heard
This is a doctrine that dates back to the ruling in U.S. vs. unintelligible voices coming from the car as it was
De Jesus25 that where the accomplices therein cruising around Denver Loop Street, a circular road
consented to help in the commission of forcible whose entrance and exit were through the same point
abduction, they were responsible for the resulting (ibid, p. 12). His curiosity taking [the] better part of him,
homicide even if the purpose of the principal to commit Cacao walked to the opposite side of the road from
homicide was unknown to the accomplices. where he saw the car already parked. Moments later, he
saw the victim dragged out of the car by Florendo and
Whatever doubt the court a quo entertained on the brought to a grassy place. Florendo was holding a gun
criminal responsibility of appellants Conrado and Virgilio (ibid, p. 13). Upon reaching the grassy spot, Florendo
Doctolero did not refer to whether or not they were liable aimed and fired the gun at the victim, hitting him
but only with regard to the extent of their participation. between the eyes, After the shooting, Florendo and his
There being ample evidence of their criminal companions fled in different directions.
participation, but a doubt exists on the nature of their
liability, the courts should favor the milder form of liability When he submitted a sworn statement to the
or responsibility which is that of being mere investigating prosecutor, Cacao attached a sketch of the
accomplices,26 crime scene prepared by police officers, indicating
therein his relative position at the time of the incident.
The lower court held that Conrado Doctolero and his While testifying in court, Cacao identified Garcia and
brother, Virgilio, participated as accomplices in the pointed to appellant as among the companions of
slaying of the women and the infliction of injuries on the Florendo.
child. We agree with its findings and the ratiocination of
the Solicitor General with its evidentiary substantiation. Ten minutes later, or about 2:40 in the afternoon, the
desk officer of the Investigation Division, Station 5,
There is no question that while the three appellants were Central Police District, Quezon City received a report
still stoning and hurling challenges at the house of about the shooting incident from a security guard of the
Marcial Sagun, they must have already heard the two subdivision. The officer immediately dispatched a team
women thereat protesting what they were doing and to Filinvest II, composed of PO2 Armando Garcia, PO3
shouting back at them, after which all the three Armando Junio, and PO3 Jovencio Villacorte, to
appellants went up the house. Under these facts, it is investigate and gather evidence (TSN, p. 5, September
impossible that both appellants Virgilio Doctolero and 13, 1993). A security guard guided the team to the
Conrado Doctolero did not know or were not aware when corner of Denver and Doña Justina Streets, site of the
their brother Ludovico was brutally killing the two women shooting, where they discovered blood stains and
Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo and Epifania Escosio and damaged grass (ibid, p. 6). The guard informed them
wounding the child Jonathan Oviedo inside the room of that the victim was rushed to the East Avenue Medical
said house. Furthermore, from the nature, number, and Center by other security guards. The policemen then
locations of the many wounds sustained by the two found a color red sports car with plate no. NBZ 869, with
women and child, it could not have been possible for engine still running and its doors opened. They
Ludovico's two brothers Virgilio and Conrado (assuming recovered inside the car several class cards and a
that they did not go inside the house) not to hear either license belonging to one Ric Capulong, who was later
the screams of pain of their brother's victims or the identified as Frederick Capulong.
contact between the blade of his bolo and their bodies
when their brother Ludovico was ruthlessly hacking them The policemen went around the subdivision to look for
several times. possible suspects. They came upon a person wearing
muddled maong pants and white t-shirt "standing and
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that appellants walking around" near the clubhouse of the subdivision.
Conrado Doctolero and Virgilio themselves knew what When asked his name, the person identified himself as
was going on inside the room of the house at the time, Edwin de Vera, herein appellant. Explaining the mud
but they just stood by and did nothing to stop their stains on his pants, appellant declared that he was a
brother Ludovico Doctolero from brutally hacking his victim of a hold-up. Suspicious [of] his conduct, the
women victims to death. It is, therefore, reasonable to policemen brought appellant to Station 5 and turned him
believe that the two appellants, Conrado and Virgilio, over to the desk officer for investigation.
merely stood by as their brother Ludovico Doctolero was
murdering the two deceased women, ready to lend Another prosecution witness, SPO3 Mario Guspid, a
assistance. Indeed, there is no question that the police investigator since 1989, was assigned to
presence of these two appellants upstairs in the house of investigate the shooting of Frederick Capulong. He was
Marcial Sagun gave their brother Ludovico Doctolero the assisted by SPO4 Pablito Selvido, SPO2 Armando
encouragement and reliance to proceed as he did Rivera, SPO3 Jovencio Villacorte, SPO3 Rolando
proceed, in committing the heinous crimes against two Gacute, SPO3 Danilo Castro and other police officers.
defenseless women and a child.
Upon receiving his assignment, SPO3 Guspid
8. People vs. De Vera immediately went to the East Avenue Medical Center
where he saw the victim lying inside the intensive care
Facts: unit receiving medical treatment. The victim was
Version of the Prosecution unconscious. After conferring with the victim's parents
and relatives, SPO3 Guspid returned to Station 5. On his
About 1:30 in the afternoon of June 8, 1992, while arrival, the desk officer referred appellant to him for
bringing out the garbage, the witness saw a car passing questioning. He was told that appellant was picked up
by, driven by victim Frederick Capulong together with near the crime scene acting suspiciously. When

206
 AB
appellant was asked about his participation in the Kenneth drove his car. Upon reaching Filinvest, Kenneth
shooting, he was reluctant at first to talk, but later stopped at a house and the four of them alighted in front
relented after SPO3 Guspid told him that his conscience of the house. Edwin did not know whose house it was.
would bother him less if he would tell the truth. Kenneth and Elmer told Edwin and Deo to wait near the
car because they were going to see a friend. At that
Without any hesitation, appellant admitted being [with point in time, Edwin knew the person[,] whom Kenneth
the] group which perpetrated the crime, and implicated and Elmer went to see[,] by name, never having met him
Roderick Garcia. He was then persuaded to accompany personally before then. From his conversation with Deo,
a group of policemen to the residence of Garcia, which Edwin found out that the house was where Deo stayed.
turned out to be at Doña Justina Street, Filinvest II
Subdivision. Finding Garcia at home, SPO3 Guspid Then, Edwin heard the voices of Kenneth and his friend
informed him that he was implicated by appellant [in] the and they appeared to be arguing (". . . . parang nagtatalo
crime. He was then invited to the station to shed light sila") The voices came from some twenty-two (22)
[on] the incident. Garcia consented. meters away. Not before long, Edwin also heard a
gunshot which came from where Kenneth and Elmer had
At Station 5, SPO3 Guspid interviewed appellant and gone to. He was shocked because he was not used to
Garcia. In the course of the interview, Garcia revealed hearing gunfire. Frightened, he panicked and ran away
the place where he hid a .22 caliber gun, black t-shirt from the place. His singular thought while running was to
and black cap. According to Garcia, Florendo asked get out of Filinvest. Deo also ran away.
them to wear black t-shirts. With the revelation, SPO3
Guspid, SPO2 Rivera, SPO3 Gacute and SPO3 Castro, Edwin denied that either he or Deo carried any firearm
together with the suspects, went back to the subdivision on that occasion.
and proceeded to a grassy portion near the boundary of
Filinvest II and San Mateo, Rizal. The place was near a Edwin was arrested by the police at past 2:00 p.m. when
creek and about 50 meters away from the residence of he was already outside of Filinvest subdivision in front of
Garcia (TSN, pp. 9-14, September 30, 1993). Truly, the Batasan. He was brought to Station 5 where four (4)
policemen recovered a .22 caliber revolver, black t-shirt persons in civilian attire tortured him by forcing him to lie
and black cap (TSN, pp. 12-13, August 24, 1993).While down on a bench, tying his feet together and binding his
there, SPO3 Guspid and SPO2 Rivera prepared a hands from his back with handcuffs, and then covering
sketch of the crime scene to reflect the explanations and his face with a piece of dirty cloth into which water was
answers given by appellant and Garcia in response to poured little by little into his face and mouth, while one of
their questions. As identifying marks, SPO3 Gacute them sat on his thighs. This maltreatment lasted for
placed his initials "OG" (acronym for his first name and about 20 or 25 minutes, because they wanted him to
family name) between the handle and cylinder of the admit "something" and to name "my companions" but he
gun, and on the neck of the t-shirt, as well as in the inner refused to admit or to name anyone. They next took him
lining of the black cap. outside to a mango tree where they repeated his ordeal
for 30 minutes. At one point during the torture, a
Version of the Defense policeman untied his feet and hands and poked a gun to
his temple, telling him to run as it was his chance to
Appellant claims that he had no part in the killing, and escape, but he did not escape because he could see
that it was Kenneth Florendo who had shot the victim. that they were merely frightening him.
He avers that he merely accompanied to Filinvest the
other accused and Florendo, who was his friend, upon Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that
the latter's request. A few hours after the shooting there was conspiracy to kill the victim and that appellant
incident, appellant was picked up by the police, who was a co-conspirator.
subsequently tortured and coerced him into signing his
Statement regarding the incident. The trial court Ruling: In other words, appellant's presence was not
summarized appellant's evidence in this wise:10 innocuous. Knowing that Florendo intended to kill the
victim and that the three co-accused were carrying
Edwin de Vera admitted that, as of June 8, 1992, he and weapons, he had acted as a lookout to watch for
Kenneth Florendo were already close friends for about a passersby. He was not an innocent spectator; he was
year, sometimes sleeping in the latter's house at No. 106 at the locus criminis in order to aid and abet the
Kamias Road, Quezon City. His own residence at the commission of the crime. These facts, however, did
time was at No. 7 Bignay Street, Project 2, Quezon City. not make him a conspirator; at most, he was only an
That was also the address of Elmer Castro, his and accomplice.
Kenneth's friend.
The Revised penal Code provides that a conspiracy
Edwin had slept in Kenneth's house on Kamias Road exists when "two or more persons come to an
from June 6 to June 8, 1992 and went home at 7:00 am agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
of June 8th Later at around 10:30 am, Kenneth passed decide to commit it."17 To prove conspiracy, the
by Edwin's house to invite him back to [the former's] prosecution must establish the following three requisites:
house that morning and to bring Elmer along. Kenneth "(1) that two or more persons came to an agreement, (2)
mentioned that he, his girlfriend, and Deo, who were that the agreement concerned the commission of a
then with him, would be going somewhere first. Deo, or crime, and (3) that the execution of the felony [was]
Roderick Garcia, was another friend of Kenneth's. decided upon."18 Except in the case of the mastermind
of a crime, it must also be shown that the accused
Edwin and Elmer later went to and arrived at Kenneth's performed an overt act in furtherance of the
house at 11:00 am. Kenneth, his girlfriend, and Deo conspiracy.19 The Court has held that in most instances,
were already taking lunch, and invited the two to lunch. direct proof of a previous agreement need not be
After lunch, Kenneth asked Edwin to go with him to established, for conspiracy may be deduced from the
Filinvest without telling why. It was Deo who mentioned acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose,
to Edwin that Kenneth was going to see a friend. Edwin concerted action and community of interest.20
was not aware if Kenneth had also asked the others to
go with him to Filinvest, but the four of them — Kenneth, On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines
Edwin, Elmer, and Deo — later proceeded to Filinvest accomplices as "those persons who, not being included
[i]n Kenneth's car. Edwin sat at the back seat. The time in Article 17,21 cooperate in the execution of the offense
was past 12:00 noon. by previous or simultaneous acts."22 The Court has held
207
 AB
that an accomplice is "one who knows the criminal approached her. Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth
design of the principal and cooperates knowingly or with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be
intentionally therewith by an act which, even if not killed. He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn
rendered, the crime would be committed just the while his four companions stood guard outside.5
same."23 To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two
elements must be present: (1) the "community" of Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing AAA. Private
criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of complainant fought back but to no avail. Thereafter,
the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her.
latter in his purpose;" and (2) the performance of After a while, they heard people shouting and calling the
previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable name of AAA. At this point, petitioner Ernesto Garces
to the commission of the crime.24 entered the barn, covered AAA’s mouth, then dragged
her outside. He also threatened to kill her if she reports
The distinction between the two concepts needs to be the incident.6
underscored, in view of its effect on appellant's penalty.
Once conspiracy is proven, the liability is collective and Upon reaching the house of Florentino Garces, petitioner
not individual. The act of one of them is deemed the act released AAA. Shortly afterwards, AAA’s relatives found
of all.25 In the case of an accomplice, the liability is one her crying, wearing only one slipper and her hair was
degree lower than that of a principal. disheveled. They brought her home but when asked
what happened, AAA could not answer because she was
Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in in a state of shock. After a while, she was able to recount
common: they know and agree with the criminal design. the incident.7
Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention
because they themselves have decided upon such Rosendo Pacursa denied that he raped the victim, while
course of action. Accomplices come to know about it his co-accused presented alibis as their defense.
after the principals have reached the decision, and only Pacursa testified that he and AAA were sweethearts for
then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. almost a year prior to the incident. On the night of
Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; August 2, 1992, he was on his way to the house of
accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not Antonio Pira, Jr. to watch a televised basketball game
decide whether the crime should be committed; they when he saw AAA. The latter allegedly wanted to have a
merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its talk with him so he led her to the tobacco barn about 15
accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a meters away, so that no one might see them. They were
crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who alone by the door of the barn talking, embracing and
perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the kissing. They only parted ways when he saw the
offense. relatives of AAA. He denied having sexual intercourse
In the present case, Appellant De Vera knew that with her. After the incident, he received a letter8 from
Kenneth Florendo had intended to kill Capulong at AAA asking him to elope.9
the time, and he cooperated with the latter. But he On the other hand, petitioner, Antonio Pira, Jr., and
himself did not participate in the decision to kill Aurelio Pira, testified that they were watching a televised
Capulong; that decision was made by Florendo and basketball game at the house of Antonio Pira, Jr. at the
the others. He joined them that afternoon after the time the alleged rape transpired. They denied seeing
decision to kill had already been agreed upon; he Pacursa that night.10
was there because "nagkahiyaan na." This is clear
from his statement, which we quote again for the sake of After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its
clarity: decision finding Pacursa guilty of Forcible Abduction with
Rape while petitioner Garces was found guilty as an
T: Ito bang balak ni Kenneth para patayin itong si accessory to the crime. Antonio Pira, Jr. and Aurelio Pira
Frederick ay alam mo ba ito at pumayag kang maging were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.11
kasapakat nito?
Issue:
S: Sinabi po niya ito sa akin. Hindi po ako pumayag.
Pero noong araw na iyon ay nagkahiyaan na lamang at Ruling: We do not agree, however, that petitioner
napilitan akong sumama.34 should be convicted as an accessory to the crime.

Significantly, the plan to kill could have been Having known of the criminal design and thereafter
accomplished without him. It should be noted further that acting as a lookout, petitioner is liable as an
he alone was unarmed that afternoon. Florendo and accomplice,32 there being insufficient evidence to prove
Garcia had guns, and Castro had a baseball bat. conspiracy,33 and not merely as an accessory. As
defined in the Revised Penal Code, accomplices are
In any event, the prosecution evidence has not those who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in
established that appellant was part of the conspiracy the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
to kill the victim. His participation, as culled from his acts.34 The two elements necessary to hold petitioner
own Statement, was made. after the decision to kill liable as an accomplice are present: (1) community of
was already a fait accompli. Thus, in several cases, criminal design, that is, knowing the criminal design of
the Court has held: the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
[L]ack of complete evidence of conspiracy, that creates latter in his purpose; and (2) performance of previous or
the doubt whether they had acted as principals or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the
accomplices in the perpetration of the offense, impels commission of the crime.35
this Court to resolve in their favor the question, by The facts show that petitioner participated in the
holding . . . that they were guilty of the "milder form of commission of the crime even before complainant was
responsibility," i.e., guilty as mere accomplices.35 raped. He was present when Pacursa abducted
9. Garces vs. People complainant and when he brought her to the barn. He
positioned himself outside the barn together with the
Facts: On August 2, 1992, between 8:00 and 9:00 other accused as a lookout. When he heard the shouts
o’clock in the evening, AAA was on her way to the of people looking for complainant, he entered the barn
chapel when the five accused suddenly appeared and and took complainant away from Pacursa.
208
 AB
Penalty: With respect to petitioner, the penalty imposed She had no hand at all in the actual shooting of her
upon accomplices in a consummated crime is the husband. Neither is it clear that she helped directly in the
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the planning and preparation thereof, albeit We are
felony. Since simple rape is punishable with reclusion convinced that she knew it was going to be done and did
perpetua, the penalty of reclusion temporal should also not object. (U.S. vs. Romulo, 15 Phil. 408, 411-414.) It is
be imposed on petitioner in its medium period in the not definitely shown that she masterminded it either by
absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. herself alone or together with her co-appellant
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Talingdan.
imposable penalty should range from prision mayor, as
minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as There is in the record morally convincing proof that she
maximum. is at the very least an accessory to the offense
committed by her co-accused. She was inside the room
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly when her husband was shot. As she came out after the
liable. If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a shooting, she inquired from Corazon if she was able to
felony, as in this case, the court shall determine the recognize the assailants of her father. When Corazon
amount for which each must respond to be enforced in Identified appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and
accordance with Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code. Bides as the culprits, Teresa did not only enjoin her
Thus, the amount of damages to be awarded must be daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she
apportioned according to the respective responsibilities went to the extent of warning her, "Don't tell it to anyone.
of the accused to be paid by them solidarily within their I will kill you if you tell this to somebody." Later, when the
respective class and subsidiarily for the others. peace officers who repaired to their house to investigate
what happened, instead of helping them with the
10. People vs. Talingdan information given to her by Corazon, she claimed she
Facts: Friday morning: Corazon, Teresa’s daughter, was had no suspects in mind.
in a creek to wash clothes. She saw her mother Teresa In other words, whereas, before the actual shooting of
meeting with Talingdan and their co-appellants Magellan her husband, she was more or less passive in her
Tobias, Augusto Berras, and Pedro Bides in a small hut attitude regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy, known
owned by Bernardo. to her, to do away with him, after Bernardo was killed,
She heard one of them say "Could he elude a bullet." she became active in her cooperation with them. These
subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or
When Teresa noticed Corazon, she shoved her away assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime"
saying "You tell your father that we will kill him." which makes her liable as an accessory after the fact
under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal
Saturday, after sunset: Corazon was cooking food for
Code.
supper when she saw her mother go down the house to
go to the yard where she again met with the other 11. Dizon-Paminutan vs. People
appellants.
Facts:
She noted the long guns the appellants were carrying.
Version of the Prosecution
Teresa came back to the house and proceeded to her
room. Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, Department of
Public Works and Highways testified that he has just
Corazon informed Bernardo, who was then working on a arrived at his residence located at Better Living
plow, about the presence of persons downstairs, but Subdivision, Parañaque at around 9:45 p.m. of February
Bernardo paid no attention. 12, 1988 coming from the Airport and immediately
proceeded inside the house, leaving behind his driver
Bernardo proceeded to the kitchen and sat himself on
and two housemaids outside to pick-up his personal
the floor near the door.
belongings from his case. It was at this point that five
He was suddenly fired upon form below the stairs of the unidentified masked armed persons appeared from the
“batalan.” grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked
their guns to his driver and two helpers and dragged
The four accused climbed the stairs of the batalan and them inside his house. That the men pointed a gun at
upon seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and him and was made to lie face down on the floor. The
Tobias fired at him again. other occupants, namely his wife, the maids and his
driver were likewise made to lie on the floor. Thereafter,
Bides and Berras did not fire at that precise time but
the robbers ransacked the house and took away
when Corazon tried to call for help, Bides warned her
jewelries and other personal properties including cash.
that he will kill her if she calls for help.
After the intruders left the house he reported the matter
Teresa came out of her room and when Corazon immediately to the police. He was then interviewed by
informed her that she recognized the killers, the former the Parañaque police and was informed that an
threatened to kill the latter if she revealed the matter to operation group would be assigned to the case.
anyone.
He likewise reported the matter to the Western Police
Issue: Whether or not Teresa Domogma liable as an District on February 15, 1988. Two days later, a group of
accessory to Bernardo’s murder? WPD operatives came over to his house and he was
asked to prepare a list of items of jewelry and other
Ruling: Yes, she may be held liable as an accessory to valuables that were lost including a sketch of distinctive
Bernardo’s murder. items. He was later told that some of the lost items were
in Chinatown area as tipped by the informer the police
True it is that the proof of her direct participation in the
had dispatched. That an entrapment would be made with
conspiracy is not beyond reasonable doubt, for which
their participation, on February 14, 1988. As such, they
reason, sue cannot have the same liability as her co-
went to Camp Crame at around 9:00 a.m. and arrived at
appellants.
the vicinity of 733 Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila at about 10:00 a.m.; that he is with his wife posed
as a buyer and were able to recognize items of the
209
 AB
jewelry stolen displayed at the stall being tended by P.D. No. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy
Norma Dizon Pamintuan; the pieces were: 1 earring and penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the
ring studded with diamonds worth P75,000 bought from crimes of robbery and theft." Evidently, the
estimator Nancy Bacud (Exh. "C-2"), 1 set of earring accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could
diamond worth P15,000 (Exh. "C-3") and 1 gold chain be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal
with crucifix worth P3,000 (Exh. "C-4"). Code or under P.D. No. 1612.

Corporal Ignacio Jao, Jr. of the WPD testified that he However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere
was with the spouses Teodoro Encarnacion, Jr. in the accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of
morning of February 24, 1988 and they proceeded to fencing. Elsewise stated, the crimes of robbery and
Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at the stall of theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are
Norma Dizon-Pamintuan together with Sgt. Perez. After separate and distinct offenses. The state may thus
the spouses Encarnacion recognized the items subject choose to prosecute him either under the Revised
matter of the robbery at the display window of the stall Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the
being tended by the herein accused, they invited the preference for the latter would seem inevitable
latter to the precinct and investigated the same. They considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and
likewise brought the said showcase to the WPD station. P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and
He further testified that he has no prior knowledge of the prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
stolen jewelries of the private complainant from one the property.
store to another.
The elements of the crime of fencing are:
Pfc. Emmanuel Sanchez of the WPD testified that he
reported for duty on February 24, 1988; that he was with 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
the group who accompanied the spouses Encarnacion in 2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in
Sta. Cruz, Manila and was around when the couple saw the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
some of the lost jewelries in the display stall of the receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
accused. He was likewise present during the early part disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
of the investigation of the WPD station.5 any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
Version of the Defense been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;

The defense presented only the testimony of Rosito 3. The accused knows or should have known that the
Dizon-Pamintuan who testified that he is the brother of said article, item, object or anything of value has been
Norma Dizon-Pamintuan and that sometime around derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
11:00 a.m. of February 24, 1985, he, together with the theft; and
accused went infront of the Carinderia along Florentino 4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila waiting for a vacancy himself or for another.
therein to eat lunch. Suddenly, three persons arrived and
he overheard that Cpl. Jao told her sister to get the In the instant case, there is no doubt that the first,
jewelry from inside the display window but her sister second, and fourth elements were duly established. A
requested to wait for Fredo, the owner of the stall. But robbery was committed on 12 February 1988 in the
ten minutes later when said Fredo did not show up, the house of the private complainants who afterwards
police officer opened the display window and got the reported the incident to the Parañaque Police, the
contents of the same. The display stall was hauled to a Western Police District, the NBI, and the CIS, and
passenger jeepney and the same, together with the submitted a list of the lost items and sketches of the
accused were taken to the police headquarters. He jewelry taken from them (Exhibits "C" and "D"). Three of
likewise testified that he accompanied his sister to the these items stolen, viz., (a) a pair of earrings and ring
station and after investigation was sent home.7 studded with diamonds worth P75,000.00 (Exhibit "C-2");
(b) one set of earrings worth P15,000.00 (Exhibit "C-3");
Issue: Whether the prosecution proved the existence of and (c) a chain with crucifix worth P3,000.00 (Exhibit "C-
the third element: that the accused knew or should have 4"), were displayed for sale at a stall tended to by the
known that the items recovered from her were the petitioner in Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The public display of the articles for sale clearly
Ruling: Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. manifested an intent to gain on the part of the petitioner.
1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), is "the act of any person who, The more crucial issue to be resolved is whether the
with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall prosecution proved the existence of the third
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or element: that the accused knew or should have
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner known that the items recovered from her were the
deal in any article, item, object or anything of value proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of One is deemed to know a particular fact if he has the
robbery or theft." cognizance, consciousness or awareness thereof, or is
aware of the existence of something, or has the
Before P.D. No. 1612, a fence could only be acquaintance with facts, or if he has something within
prosecuted for and held liable as an accessory, as the mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. When
the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised Penal knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an
Code. The penalty applicable to an accessory is element of an offense, such knowledge is
obviously light under the rules prescribed in Articles 53, established if a person is aware of a high probability
55, and 57 of the Revised Penal Code, subject to the of its existence unless he actually believes that it
qualification set forth in Article 60 thereof. Nothing, does not exist. On the other hand, the words "should
however, the reports from law enforcement agencies that know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable
"there is rampant robbery and thievery of government prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in
and private properties" and that "such robbery and performance of his duty to another or would govern
thievery have become profitable on the part of the his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.
lawless elements because of the existence of ready Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about
buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen properties,"
210
 AB
a fact. Since the court cannot penetrate the mind of an Fredo was not presented as a witness and it was not
accused and state with certainty what is contained established that he was a licensed dealer or supplier
therein, it must determine such knowledge with care of jewelry.
from the overt acts of that person. And given two equally
plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 provides that "all stores,
court should choose the one which sustains the establishments or entitles dealing in the buy and sell of
constitutional presumption of innocence. any good, article, item, object or anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that shall before offering the same for sale to the public,
"[m]ere possession of any good, article, item, object, or secure the necessary clearance or permit from the
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery station commander of the Integrated National Police in
or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it the town or city where such store, establishment or entity
follows that the petitioner is presumed to have is located." Under the Rules and Regulations
knowledge of the fact that the items found in her promulgated to carry out the provisions of Section 6, an
possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. unlicensed dealer/supplier refers to any person,
The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other
logical inference can arise from the established fact of entity or establishment not licensed by the government
her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery to engage in the business of dealing in or supplying
or theft. This presumption does not offend the "used secondhand articles," which refers to any good,
presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental article, item, object or anything of value obtained from an
law. unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the
same has actually or in fact been used.
In the early case of United States vs. Luling, this Court
held:
PLURALITY OF CRIMES
It has been frequently decided, in case of statutory
crimes, that no constitutional provision is violated by a Compound crime (delito compuesto)
statute providing that proof by the state of some material “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, grave felonies”
and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for
the purpose of showing that such act or acts are 1. People vs. Tabaco
innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.
Facts:
In some of the States, as well as in England, there exist
what are known as common law offenses. In the Version of the Prosecution
Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so
by statute. The state having the right to declare what In the evening of March 22, 1987, the 117th PC
acts are criminal, within certain well-defined limitations, stationed at Aparri, Cagayan, under then Lt. James
has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a Andres Melad, sponsored a cock derby, under the name
crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie of Jose Ting, at the Octagon Cockpit Arena located at
evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the Aparri, Cagayan.
burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and
are not committed with any criminal intent or intention. Peace officers in uniform with long firearms were
In his book on constitutional law, Mr. Justice Isagani A. assigned as guards to maintain peace and order at the
Cruz said: cockpit arena. Accused Mario Tabaco who was in civilian
clothes claims to have been also assigned by his
Nevertheless, the constitutional presumption of Commanding Officer of 117th PC, to verify the presence
innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions of NPAs and assist in the protection of VIPs in the
based on the experience of human conduct [People vs. cockpit arena, bringing with him his M-14 issued firearm.
Labara, April 20, 1954]. Unexplained flight, for example,
may lead to an inference of guilt, as 'the wicked flee At about nine (9) o'clock in the evening of same date, the
when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a group of the late Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey,
lion. Failure on the part of the accused to explain his Cagayan, arrived at the cockpit arena. His companions
possession of stolen property may give rise to the were (1) Antonio Villasin; (2) Rosario Peneyra; (3) victim
reasonable presumption that it was he himself who had Loreto Pita, Jr. and/or five (5) of them including the
stolen it [U.S. vs. Espia, 16 Phil. 506]. Under our Mayor. They occupied and were (4th row) north western
Revised Penal Code, the inability of an accountable part cockpit-gate. Others seated with the Mayor were: (1)
officer to produce funds or property entrusted to him will the late Capt. Oscar Tabulog; (2) the late Pat. Romeo
be considered prima facie evidence that he has Regunton, who was at the back of the mayor; (3) the late
appropriated them to his personal use [Art. 217]. Felicito Rigunan. The accused CIC Tabaco was seated
According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption will on the arm of the bench situated at the lower portion of
not apply as long as there is "some rational the arena about more than three (3) meters away,
connection between the fact proved and the ultimate (infront and a little bit in the west), from the place where
fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from the late Mayor and his group were seated (at the 4th row
proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to of seats upper portion).
be purely arbitrary mandate" [1 Cooley, 639].
At about ten (10) o'clock 1987, while the accused Mario
The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption Tabaco was seated as described above, he suddenly
under P.D. No. 1612. She relied solely on the testimony without warning or provocation, shot the late mayor
of her brother which was insufficient to overcome the Jorge Arreola, with his M-14 rifle, followed by several
presumption, and, on the contrary, even disclosed that successive burst of gunfire, resulting in the shooting to
the petitioner was engaged in the purchase and sale of death of the late Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog,
jewelry and that she used to buy from a certain Fredo. Felicito Rigunan and Pat. Romeo Regunton, although
the latter managed to run passing through the western
gate near the gaffers cage but was chased by accused

211
 AB
Tabaco. Regunton was later found dead inside the and rush outside, holding his M-14 rifle with the muzzle
canteen of Mrs. Amparo Go inside the Octagon cockpit pointed downwards. As he (accused) rushed towards the
arena. main gate of the cockpit arena, Mariano Retreta and Sgt.
Benito Raquepo saw him and who told him, (accused) to
Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, who was then at relax lang. Accused testified that when Mariano Retreta
the Co's canteen, saw the accused going out rushing and Sgt. Benito Raquepo told him to relax lang, he all
from the cockpit arena, at a distance of one meter. Pat. the time thought that the gun reports fired inside the
Retreta is a relative and neighbor of the accused Tabaco cockpit arena was nothing to said persons. Accused
in Buguey, Cagayan. He tried to pacify Tabaco telling however, insisted to go out, but in so doing, Mariano
him "what is that that happened again Mario." Retreta pressed the gun which he was holding
Meanwhile, Sgt. Benito Raquepo of 117th PC, and one downwards and grabbed said gun from accused. As the
of those assigned to maintain peace and order at the gun was pressed by Mariano Retreta, said gun went off,
Octagon cockpit arena, who was at the canteen taking hitting Sgt. Benito Raquepo and the death of Jorge
snacks, heard five (5) successive gun reports coming Siriban, Jr. That because of such incident, accused had
from inside the cockpit arena. In a little while, he saw the to run away, out of fear to Sgt. Benito Raquepo and the
accused Tabaco coming from inside the cockpit arena. family of Jorge Siriban who may lay the blame on him.
Raquepo advised Tabaco — "Mario relax ka lang" —
"Mario keep calm." They stood face to face holding their The following morning, accused surrendered to the
rifles and when Tabaco pointed his gun towards Sgt. police authorities of Lallo, Cagayan, who happened to
Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for the possession of pass by, not on account of the death of Ex-Mayor Jorge
the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, the gun Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and
went off hitting Sgt. Raquepo and also the late Jorge Oscar Regunton which he did not know at the time he
Siriban who happened to be near Raquepo. Siriban died surrendered, but on account of the death of Jorge
on the spot while Raquepo survived his wounds on his Siriban, Jr. and the injury sustained by Sgt. Benito
legs due to adequate medical treatment. Raquepo.

There were other persons injured that evening namely: Issue: Whether or not the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270,
(1) Antonio Chan — injured on his right foot; (2) Salvador 284 and 317, involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog,
Berbano — injured on his right forearm and on his right Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton,
abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra on his Face and right respectively, should have been prosecuted under only
shoulder. But, the three, did not file their complaints. one Information.

Version of the Defense Ruling: We hold that the trial court was in error in
Ordered by his commanding officer in the 117th PC imposing only a single penalty of reclusion perpetua
Company to assist in the maintenance of peace and for all four murder cases.
order at the Octagon Cockpit Arena located at Talungan,
Aparri, Cagayan on March 22, 1987, accused Mario The trial court holding that a complex crime was
Tabaco with his officially issued M-14 rifle and with the committed since "the evidence shows that the four (4)
basic load of ammunition went to the Octagon Cockpit victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst of fire
arena on March 22, 1987 in compliance to the orders of and/or successive automatic gun fires, meaning
a superior officer arriving thereat at about 12:00 o'clock continuous (emphasis ours) 24 does not hold water.
noon, more or less.
Consequently, the four murders which resulted from
He directly went inside the cockpit arena to make some a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex
observations and found out that there were several crime. They are separate crimes. The accused-
persons inside the said cockpit who were in possession appellant must therefore be held liable for each and
of firearms, some short and some long, and were seen in every death he has caused, and sentenced
different places and/or corners of the cockpit. Accused accordingly to four sentences of reclusion perpetua.
did not bother to verify as to why the said persons were
allowed to carry their firearms because of his The law provides:
impressions that if they did not have the authority, the Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
guards of the main gate of the cockpit would surely have
confiscated the same from them. It was his belief then When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
that they may have come from other agencies of the less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
government, assigned to help in the maintenance of necessary means for committing the other, the
peace and order in the cockpit. penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period. (as
Accused thus seated himself at the lowermost seat (first amended by Art. No. 400). (Art. 48, Revised Penal
step) of the slanted bleachers of the Octagon Cockpit Code).
arena on March 22, 1987.
Read as it should be, this article provides for two clauses
of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed; first,
At about 9:00 o'clock that very night of March 22, 1987,
where the single act constitutes two or more grave or
while accused was seated at the lowermost seat of the
less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and second,
slanted bleachers of the Octagon Cockpit arena, he
when the offense is a necessary means for committing
heard a gun report fired atop his head. Having been
the other. (delito complejo) and/or complex proper
officially assigned to help in the maintenance of peace
(People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).
and order in the cockpit and that his presence must be
known, his immediate reaction upon hearing the gun In the case at bench, there was more than one bullet
report was to fire a warning shot in the air and directed to expended by the accused-appellant in killing the four
the ceiling and/or roof of the Octagon cockpit arena. victims. The evidence adduced by the prosecution show
that Tabaco entered the cockpit with a fully loaded
After firing a warning shot, his warning was answered by M-14 sub-machine gun. He fired the weapon, which
burst of gun fire coming from different directions inside contained 20 rounds of bullets in its magazine,
the cockpit arena, for which reason, he forced to leave continuously. When the rifle was recovered from
212
 AB
Tabaco, the magazine was already empty. Moreover, — gunshot wound .5 cm. in diameter, 1 inch lateral of
several spent shells were recovered from the scene the nipple right through and through trajecting the middle
of the crime. Hence, the ruling enunciated in People vs. lobe of the lungs, it ventricle of the heart, middle lobe of
Pama cannot be applied. On the contrary, what is on all the lung, left with point of exit 1 inch in diameter 1 inch
fours with the case at bench is the ruling laid down in lateral of the nipple, left.
People vs. Desierto. The accused in that case killed
five persons with a Thompson sub-machine gun, an Ramon Garcia:
automatic firearm which, like the M-14, is capable of — gunshot wound, .5 cm. in diameter point of entrance
firing continuously. As stated therein: ear canal left thru and thru trajecting the skull brain
substance with point of exit temporal area light.
In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal — another gunshot wound .5 cm in diameter point of
Code is not applicable because the death of each of entrance anterior axilliary line left at the lable nipple
the five persons who were killed by appellant and trajecting the lung (left) heart ventricle and lung (right)
the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two with point of exit 1 cm. in diameter, 1 inch lateral the
other persons injured were not caused by the nipple right.
performance by the accused of one simple act as
provided for by said article. Sandra Montano:
Although it is true that several successive shots — gunshot wound .6 cm. in diameter, point of entrance
were fired by the accused in a short space of time, at the temporal area left, penetrating the skin, skull
yet the factor which must be taken into minigas, brain substance (right) (tempral regis) where
consideration is that, to each death caused or the slug lodge.
physical injuries inflicted upon the victims,
corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the Willie Acosta:
accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for — gunshot wound, .5 cm. in diameter below coastal arch
as many offenses as those resulting from every point of entrance trajecting the upper 3rd of the stomach
single act that produced the same. Although thru and thru trajecting the upper third of the stomach of
apparently, he perpetrated a series of offenses thoracic vein with the point of exit 1 cm. in diameter at
successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person the level of the 7th thorasic vertebrae.
killed and each person injured by him became the victim, On the other hand, William Montano and Randy
respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or Tibule survived the attack. They suffered serious
frustrated homicide. Except for the fact that five crimes of gunshot injuries that could have caused their death
homicide and two cases of frustrated homicide were were it not for the timely medical attention given
committed successively during the tragic incident, legally them. Montano sustained several gunshot wounds on
speaking there is nothing that would connect one of the left arm, two on the left upperback, another on the
them with its companion offenses. (emphasis ours) left shoulder and middle right finger. Tibule sustained
two gunshot wounds, one at the fifth upper quadrant
In Desierto, although the burst of shots was caused (stomach) and the other at the left periumbilical.
by one single act of pressing the trigger of the
Thompson sub-machine gun, in view of its special Issue:
mechanism, the person firing it has only to keep
pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire Ruling: The trial court erred when it allowed itself to
continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the be carried away by the erroneous Information filed
trigger which should produce the several felonies, by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
but the number of bullets which actually produced Pangasinan charging the complex crime of multiple
them. murder and double frustrated murder.

2. People vs. Valdez The concept of a complex crime is defined in Article 48

Facts: On September 17, 1995, at around 8:00 in the of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
evening, William Montano (16 years old), Randy Tibule
(17 years old), Jean Maria Garcia, Willie Acosta, Sandra Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes — When a single
Montano and Ramon Garcia, Jr. were at the house of act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
Randy Tibule in Manaoag, Pangasinan. They were felonies or when an offense is a necessary means
discussing how to go to the wedding party of Jean for committing the other, the penalty for the most
Marie's cousin in Sitio Cabaoangan. serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
After discussion, they rode in the tricycle driven by
Ramon Garcia going to Cabaoangan. Behind Garcia The case at bar does not fall under any of the two
were Tibule and Willie. Jean was seated inside the side instances defined above. The Office of the Provincial
car with Sandra and William Montano. Prosecutor of Pangasinan erroneously considered the
After making a turn along the barangay road leading to case as falling under the first. It is clear from the
Sitio Cabaoangan they met appellant Rolando Valdez evidence on record, however, that the four crimes of
and his companions who were armed with guns. The murder resulted not from a single act but from
tricycle's headlight flashed on their faces. Without several individual and distinct acts. For one thing, the
warning, they pointed their guns and fired at evidence indicates that there was more than one
Montano's group. Thereafter, after uttering the gunman involved, and the act of each gunman is
words, "nataydan, mapan tayon" (They are already distinct from that of the other. It cannot be said
dead. Let us go), Valdez and companions left. therefore, that there is but a single act of firing a
single firearm. There were also several empty bullet
The shooting incident left Ramon Garcia, Jean Marie shells recovered from the scene of the crime. This
Garcia, Sandra Montano and Willie Acosta dead. confirms the fact that several shots were fired.
They sustained the following injuries: Furthermore, considering the relative position of the
gunmen and their victims, some of whom were
Jean Marie Garcia: riding the motorized tricycle itself while the others
were seated inside the sidecar thereof, it was
213
 AB
absolutely impossible for the four victims to have car and Nelson's jeep at the time of the shooting, the
been hit and killed by a single bullet. Each act by assailants were at the left side of the jeep.
each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective
firearms, aiming each particular moment at different Rickson Peñalosa, son of Nelson Peñalosa, fell from
persons constitute distinct and individual acts which the jeep. The jeep, however, continued running in a
cannot give rise to the complex crime of multiple zigzag position until it overturned in front of Irais
murder. We therefore rule that accused-appellant is Farm. After the shooting, the accused proceeded to
guilty, not of a complex crime of multiple murder, the house of mayor Sanchez in Bai, Laguna, and
but of four counts of murder for the death of the four reported to mayor Sanchez that Peñalosa was
victims in this case. In the same manner, accused- already dead.
appellant is likewise held guilty for two counts of
frustrated murder. Together with his superior SPO4 Lanorio and
photographer Romeo Alcantara, policeman Daniel
3. People vs. Sanchez Escares went to the crime scene. There, he saw the
body of Nelson Peñalosa slumped at the driver seat of
Facts: On April 13, 1991, at around 10:00 in the the owner-type jeep. They recovered the body of
morning, state witness Vivencio Malabanan, team leader Rickson Peñalosa slumped on a grassy place not far
of a group of policemen, went to the Bishop Compound from where they found Nelson Peñalosa. After all the
in Calauan, Laguna, as part of the security force of evidence and photographs were taken, they brought the
mayor Antonio L. Sanchez. After a while, accused Ding cadavers to Funeraria Señerez. Daniel Escares
Peradillas arrived and asked for mayor Sanchez. submitted his investigation report of the incident to the
Peradillas informed mayor Sanchez that there would Provincial Director, Laguna PNP Command.
be a birthday party that night at Dr. Virvilio
Velecina's house in Lanot, Calauan, Laguna, near Dr. Ruben B. Escueta, Rural Health Physician, Rural
the abode of Peradillas. Peradillas assured mayor Health Unit, Calauan, Laguna, conducted an autopsy on
Sanchez of Nelson Peñalosa's presence thereat. Dr. the bodies of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa. Nelson
Velecina was a political opponent of mayor Sanchez Peñalosa suffered massive intra-cranial hemorrhage and
for the mayoralty seat of Calauan, Laguna, Mayor died of cranial injury due to gunshot wounds. Rickson
Sanchez then replied, "Bahala na kayo mga anak. Peñalosa died of massive intra thoracic hemorrhage due
Ayusin lang ninyo ang trabaho," and left the to gunshot wounds. Dr. Escueta, as a defense witness,
premises. Peradillas immediately called Corcolon and testified that based on the points of entrance and exit of
Averion and relayed the message — "Ayos na ang the wounds sustained by the Peñalosas, it was not
paguusap at humanap na lang ng sasakyan." All the possible for the assailants to be at the left side of the
accused, including Malabanan, understood it as an order victims. It contradicted Malabanan's testimony that they
to kill Nelson Peñalosa, one of the political leaders of Dr. were at the left side of the victims when the shooting
Velecina. took place. He further stated that based on the wounds
inflicted on the victims, the assailants were either in a
Afterwards, Peradillas, Corcolon and Averion made sitting or squatting position when they shot the victims.
arrangements to acquire two-way radios and a Some of the wounds indicated an upward trajectory of
vehicle for the operation. At around 2:30 in the the bullets.
afternoon, Malabanan and the three accused went their
separate ways and agreed to meet at mayor Sanchez' On September 15, 1993, Janet P. Cortez, PNP
house at 6:00 in the evening. Malabanan returned to his ballistician, completed the ballistic tests conducted
detachment area at Dayap, proceeded to the municipal on the twelve (12) empty shells found at the crime
hall, then went home where Peradillas fetched him at scene and the M-16 baby armalite surrendered by
6:00 p.m. They proceeded to mayor Sanchez' house Corcolon. She concluded that the 12 empty shells
where they met Averion and Corcolon, with the car and were fired using three (3) different firearms, one of
two-way radios. which was the M-16 baby armalite.

At around 7:00 in the evening, Malabanan and the three The accused interposed the defense of alibi and denial.
accused boarded the car and went to Marpori Poultry
Farm in Barangay Lanot, near Dr. Velecina's house.
Peradillas alighted and walked towards his own house, The trial court considered the crime as a complex
near Dr. Velecina's house, to check whether Nelson crime of double murder punishable under Article 48
Peñalosa was at the party. of the Revised Penal Code. However, at the time of
the commission of the offense on April 13, 1991,
Thereafter, using the two-way radio, Peradillas informed there was a constitutional proscription on the
the occupants of the car that Nelson Peñalosa's jeep imposition of the death penalty. Thus, each of the
was leaving the Velecina compound. Accused Averion accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and
immediately drove the car to the front of Peradilla's to pay damages to the heirs of the victims, as earlier
house and the latter hopped in the car's back seat. quoted.
Corcolon sat in the front seat beside him; witness Issue: Whether the act of shooting the victims using
Malabanan sat at the left side of the backseat and armalites in automatic firing mode constitutes a single
Peradillas stayed at the right side of the back seat. The act and, thus, the felonies resulting therefrom are
group pursued Peñalosa's jeep. When the accused's considered as complex crimes.
car was passing Victoria Farms, located about 100
meters from Peñalosa compound, Corcolon ordered Ruling: We rule in the negative.
Averion to overtake Peñalosa's jeep. As the car
In People v. Vargas, Jr., we ruled that "several shots
overtook the jeep, Peradillas and Corcolon fired at
from a Thompson sub-machine, in view of its special
Peñalosa's jeep, using M-16 and baby armalite rifles,
mechanism causing several deaths, although caused by
executed in automatic firing mode. There were three
a single act of pressing the trigger, are considered
bursts of gunfire. Based on the sketch prepared by
several acts.
Malabanan, illustrating the relative position of their

214
 AB
Although each burst of shots was caused by one right side of the road firing at them in a squatting
single act of pressing the trigger of the sub- position using an M-16 armalite rifle.
machinegun, in view of its special mechanism the
person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger Macasuba was also able to identify appellants Ricardo,
of the sub-machinegun, with his finger and it would Pedro, Eduardo, Sr., Eduardo, Jr., Brigido and Alfredo as
fire continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing among the ambushers. Mayor Tawan-tawan ordered
the trigger which should be considered as producing Juanito to keep on driving to avoid greater casualties.
the several felonies, but the number of bullets which The vehicle stopped upon reaching the army and Civilian
actually produced them." Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) detachment
in Curva, Miagao, Salvador, Lanao del Norte. Mayor
In the instant case, Malabanan testified that he heard Tawan-tawan then asked assistance therefrom.17
three bursts of gunfire from the two armalites used
by accused Corcolon and Peradillas. Thus, the Immediately after the ambush, appellants and their co-
accused are criminally liable for as many offenses accused ran towards the house of Samuel’s aunt
resulting from pressing the trigger of the armalites. located, more or less, 10 meters away from the site of
the ambush to get their bags and other stuff. The house
Therefore, accused are liable for two counts of of Samuel’s aunt was the place where appellants and
murder committed against the victims, Nelson and their co-accused stayed prior to the incident. Samuel
Rickson Peñalosa, instead of the complex crime of followed appellants and their co-accused to the house of
double murder. his aunt. Thereafter, appellants and their co-accused
hurriedly ran towards Barangay Lindongan, Municipality
of Baroy, Lanao del Norte.18
4. People vs. Nelmida On the occasion of the ambush, two security escorts of
Facts: Mayor Tawan-tawan, namely, PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt.
Dacoco, died, while others suffered injuries. In particular,
Version of the Prosecution Macasuba was slightly hit on the head by shrapnel;
Mosanip sustained injury on his shoulder that almost
Mayor Tawan-tawan of Salvador, Lanao del Norte,
severed his left arm; PFC Tomanto was hit on the right
together with his security escorts composed of some
and left sides of his body, on his left leg and knee; PFC
members of the Philippine Army, Philippine National
Angni was hit on his left shoulder; and Juanito was hit on
Police (PNP) and civilian aides, to wit: (1) T/Sgt. Dacoco;
his right point finger, right head and left hip. Mayor
(2) PFC Angni; (3) PFC Tomanto; (4) PO3 Dela Cruz; (5)
Tawan-tawan and Jun were not injured.19
Juanito; (6) Mosanip; (7) Macasuba; and (8) a certain
Jun, respectively, were in Tubod, Lanao del Norte. In the All the victims of the ambush, except Macasuba, were
afternoon, the group went home to Salvador, Lanao del brought to Bontilao Country Clinic in Maranding, Lala,
Norte, on board the yellow pick-up service vehicle of Lanao del Norte, and were later transferred to Mindanao
Mayor Tawan-tawan driven by Juanito. Sitting at the Sanitarium and Hospital in Tibanga, Iligan City. PO3
passenger seat of the aforesaid vehicle was Mayor Dela Cruz, however, died before reaching the hospital
Tawan-tawan while those at the back seat were while T/Sgt. Dacoco died in the hospital. PFC Tomanto
Mosanip, Jun, and Macasuba, who was sitting stayed at Mindanao Sanitarium and Hospital for 13 days
immediately behind Juanito. Those seated on a wooden before he was transferred to Camp Evangelista Hospital
bench installed at the rear (open) portion of the said in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City, and then in a hospital in
yellow pick-up service vehicle were PFC Tomanto, PFC Manila and Quezon City. PFC Angni stayed for seven (7)
Angni, PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. Dacoco. PFC Tomanto days in Mindanao Sanitarium and Hospital before he
and PFC Angni were sitting beside each other facing the was transferred to Camp Evangelista Hospital, where he
right side of the road while PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. was confined for one (1) month. PFC Angni was
Dacoco were both seated behind PFC Tomanto and transferred to V. Luna Hospital in Quezon City and was
PFC Angni facing the left side of the road.15 confined therein for two (2) months.20
At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, appellants, On the other hand, Mayor Tawan-tawan, Macasuba and
together with their aforenamed co-accused, brought the members of the CAFGU went back to the site of the
Samuel to a waiting shed in Purok 2, San Manuel, ambush but appellants and their co-accused were no
Lala, Lanao del Norte, the one located on the left longer there. Not long after, SPO4 Medrano, Chief of
side of the road going to Salvador, Lanao del Norte. Police of Salvador Municipal Police Station, Salvador,
Samuel was instructed by appellants and their co- Lanao del Norte, and his troops arrived. It was while
accused to stay in the said waiting shed while they inside the Salvador Municipal Police Station that SPO4
assembled themselves in a diamond position on Medrano heard gunfire and he came to know that the
both sides of the road, which is more or less five (5) group of Mayor Tawan-tawan was ambushed prompting
meters away from the shed. Then, appellants and him and his troops to go to the scene of the crime. Mayor
their co-accused surreptitiously waited for the Tawan-tawan informed SPO4 Medrano that appellant
vehicle of the group of Mayor Tawan-tawan. Wenceslao was one of those responsible for the
ambush. SPO4 Medrano and his troops, then, conducted
A few minutes later, Samuel saw the yellow pick-up
an investigation during which he noticed Samuel at the
service vehicle of Mayor Tawan-tawan approaching
scene of the crime. Upon interrogation Samuel denied
towards the direction of Salvador, Lanao del Norte.
any involvement in the ambush. Even so, SPO4
The moment the yellow pick-up service vehicle of
Medrano still found Samuel suspicious, hence, he and
Mayor Tawan-tawan passed by the aforesaid waiting
his fellow police officers arrested him and turned him
shed, appellants and their co-accused opened fire
over to a certain SPO4 Micabalo, Chief of Police of Lala,
and rained bullets on the vehicle using high-
Lanao del Norte. Samuel was then brought to Lala
powered firearms.
Municipal Jail in Lanao del Norte.
Both Macasuba, who was sitting immediately behind
Subsequently, SPO4 Medrano, together with the
the driver, and PFC Tomanto, who was then sitting
members of the CAFGU, PNP and the rest of the troops
on the rear (open) portion of the yellow pick-up
who were at the scene of the crime, found a trail of
service vehicle, saw appellant Wenceslao on the
footprints believed to be from the culprits. They

215
 AB
conducted a hot pursuit operation towards Barangay imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Lindongan, Municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte, [Emphasis supplied].
where appellants and their co-accused were believed to
have fled. They were able to recover an M-16 armalite In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually
rifle caliber 5.26 concealed near a nipa hut. SPO4 committed, however, in the eyes of the law and in the
Medrano then sent a Spot Report and a follow-up report conscience of the offender they constitute only one
about the ambush. He did not, however, reveal the crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. There are two
identity of appellant Wenceslao so that with a warrant of kinds of complex crime:
arrest, appellant Wenceslao could be arrested at the  Compound crime (defined) – when a single act
earliest possible time. SPO4 Medrano also informed the constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.
provincial headquarters about the incident through a o Ex: when a single bullet results in the death of
radio message.21
two or more persons.
The following day, or on 6 June 2001, Samuel informed  Complex crime proper (defined) – when an
SPO1 Suaring, member of PNP Lala Municipal Police, offense is a necessary means for committing the
Lala, Lanao del Norte, that there were electrical supplies other. The classic example of the first kind is.
and radio antenna in San Manuel, Lala, Lanao del Norte,
A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts
left by the malefactors. SPO1 Suaring, together with
result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine
Samuel, Senior P/Insp. Salazar, SPO4 Subingsubing
that when various victims expire from separate
and a certain SPO4 Sumaylo, proceeded to San Manuel,
shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct
Lala, Lanao del Norte, where they found the materials
crimes.
near the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) canal,
which is 30 meters away from the house of Samuel’s From its factual backdrop, it can easily be gleaned
aunt. These were photographed.22 that the killing and wounding of the victims were not
the result of a single discharge of firearms by the
Later, SPO2 Evasco, who was assigned at Lala Police
appellants and their co-accused. To note, appellants
Station, received a call from Barangay Kagawad Renato
and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets
Senahon (Brgy. Kgwd. Senahon) that a black backpack
on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and
was found in Mount Curay-curay, Rebe, Lala, Lanao del
his group. As a result, two security escorts died
Norte, which is two (2) kilometers away from the
while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The
highway. Immediately, SPO2 Evasco and Brgy. Kgwd.
victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts
Senahon went to the location. Upon inspection, they
of their bodies. Therefrom, it cannot be gainsaid that
recovered from the backpack an army camouflage with
more than one bullet had hit the victims. Moreover,
name cloth, one Garand pouch and one fragmentation
more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of the
grenade cacao type. SPO2 Evasco then brought these
victims. As held in People v. Valdez, each act by each
to the police station in Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte,
gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms,
and turned it over to Senior P/Insp. Salazar.23
aiming each particular moment at different persons
On 8 June 2001, Samuel executed his sworn statement constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give
identifying appellants and their co-accused as the rise to a complex crime.
persons responsible for the ambush of Mayor Tawan-
Obviously, appellants and their co-accused
tawan and his companions. Samuel was, thereafter,
performed not only a single act but several
incarcerated at the Bureau of Jail Management and
individual and distinct acts in the commission of the
Penology (BJMP) in Tubod, Lanao del Norte.24
crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
On 29 August 2001, or more than two (2) months after would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act."
the ambush, appellant Wenceslao was arrested while he
Other Notes:
was in Katipa, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental.
Appellant Ricardo, on the other hand, was arrested on People vs. Lawas
20 December 2001 while working in Puting Bato in
Sapad, Lanao del Norte. It was Senior P/Insp. Salazar There are, however, several rulings which applied Article
who effected the arrest of the appellants. 48 of the Revised Penal Code despite the fact that
several acts were performed by several accused in the
 Appellants denied having any involvement in the commission of the crime resulting to the death and/or
ambush. injuries to their victims.
Issue: Whether the conviction of appellants must be for In People v. Lawas, the members of the Home Guard,
the separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and upon order of their leader, Lawas, simultaneously and
seven (7) counts of attempted murder or of the complex successively fired at several victims. As a result, 50
crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder persons died. It was there held that the killing was the
and double attempted murder. result of a single impulse as there was no intent on the
part of the accused to fire at each and every victim
Ruling: Evidently, there is in this case no complex
separately and distinctly from each other.
crime proper. And the circumstances present in this
case do not fit exactly the description of a If the act or acts complained of resulted from a
compound crime. With all the foregoing, this Court single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single
holds appellants liable for the separate crimes of two offense. However, "single criminal impulse" was not
(2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of the only consideration in applying Article 48 of the
attempted murder. Revised Penal Code in the said case because there
was therein no evidence at all showing the identity
The concept of a complex crime is defined in Article 48
or number of persons killed by each accused. There
of the Revised Penal Code which explicitly states that:
was also no conspiracy to perpetuate the killing,
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single thus, collective criminal responsibility could not be
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, imputed upon the accused. Since it was impossible
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing to ascertain the number of persons killed by each of
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be them, this Court was "forced" to find all the accused

216
 AB
guilty of only one offense of multiple homicide In People v. De los Santos,92 a prison riot occurred for
instead of holding each of them responsible for 50 two consecutive days inside the national penitentiary
deaths. between the members of two gangs, i.e., Sigue-Sigue
Sputnik and Oxo. As a result, nine (9) inmates were
Significantly, there was no conspiracy in People v. killed. Fourteen (14) inmates were then convicted for the
Lawas. However, as this Court held in People v. crime of multiple murder. The existence of conspiracy in
Remollino, the Lawas doctrine is more of an the commission of the crime was duly proven. There
exception than the general rule. was, however, no discussion why the accused were
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to convicted of a complex crime instead of separate crimes.
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony In a similar case of People v. Abella,93 involving the
and then decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal Colony
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the and a reprise of a similar riot that occurred in the national
felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. Once penitentiary on 16 February 1958 (subject of De los
established, each and every one of the conspirators is Santos), all the accused were also convicted for the
made criminally liable for the crime actually committed complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated
by any one of them. In the absence of any direct proof, murder. Conspiracy likewise attended the commission of
the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the crime. This Court applied the ruling in De los
the mode and manner of the commission of the offense Santos and elucidated that the ruling in the said
or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and case is predicated on the theory that "when for the
design, concerted action, and community of interest. As attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an
such, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, offense, various acts are executed, such acts must
as each of the actors incurs the same criminal liability, be considered only as one offense," a complex one.
because the act of one is the act of all.86 The Lawas doctrine was equally applied although
The Information filed against appellants and their co- conspiracy had been duly proven. This Court then stated
accused alleged conspiracy, among others. Although the that where a conspiracy animates several persons
trial court did not directly state that a conspiracy existed, with a single purpose "their individual acts in
such may be inferred from the concerted actions of the pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a
appellants and their co-accused, to wit: (1) appellants single act – the act of execution – giving rise to a
and their co-accused brought Samuel to a waiting shed complex offense. The felonious agreement produces
located on the left side of the road where the yellow pick- a sole and solidary liability: each confederate forms
up service vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and but a part of a single being."
his group would pass; (2) appellants and their co- People v. Garcia95 and People v. Pincalin96 have the
accused, thereafter, assembled themselves on both same factual background as De los Santos and Abella.
sides of the road and surreptitiously waited for the They were the third and fourth cases, respectively, of
aforesaid yellow pick-up service vehicle; (3) the moment prison riots resulting to the killing of convicts by fellow
the yellow pick-up service vehicle passed by the waiting convicts while inside the national penitentiary. In Garcia,
shed, appellants and their co-accused opened fire and the accused were convicted for the complex crime of
rained bullets thereon resulting in the killing and multiple murder and double attempted murder, while in
wounding of the victims; (4) immediately, appellants and Pincalin the accused were convicted for the complex
their co-accused ran towards the house of Samuel’s aunt crime of double murder and frustrated murder. In both
to get their bags and other stuff; (5) Samuel followed cases, this Court found conspiracy to have attended the
appellants and their co-accused; and (6) appellants and commission of the crime.
their co-accused fled.
In applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in
Conspiracy is very much evident from the afore- Garcia and Pincalin, this Court, gave the same
enumerated actuations of the appellants and their co- justification as in Abella: that both cases were covered
accused. Clearly, their acts were coordinated. They were by the rule that "when for the attainment of a single
synchronized in their approach to riddle with bullets the purpose, which constitutes an offense various acts are
vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. executed, such acts must be considered as only one
They were motivated by a single criminal impulse ─ to offense, a complex one." Correspondingly, "where a
kill the victims. Indubitably, conspiracy is implied when conspiracy animates several persons with a single
the accused persons had a common purpose and were purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that
united in its execution. Spontaneous agreement or active purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of
cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts
commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint committed under one criminal impulse may constitute a
criminal responsibility.87 single complex offense.97
With the presence of conspiracy in the case at bench, We however found no intention by this Court to establish
appellants and their co-accused had assumed joint as doctrine, contrary to Lawas, that Article 48 is
criminal responsibility ─ the act of one is the act of all. applicable even in cases where several acts were
The ascertainment of who among them actually hit, killed performed by the accused and conspiracy attended the
and/or caused injury to the victims already becomes commission of the crime. In Pincalin, this Court has
immaterial. Collective responsibility replaced individual already clarified that: nonetheless, this Court further held
responsibility. The Lawas doctrine, premised on the that "in other cases where several killings on the same
impossibility of determining who killed whom, cannot, to occasion were perpetrated, but not involving prisoners, a
repeat, be applied. different rule may be applied, that is to say, the killings
Interestingly, in People v. De los Santos,88 People v. would be treated as separate offenses, as opined by Mr.
Abella,89 People v. Garcia90 and People v. Pincalin,91 Justice Makasiar and as held in some decided cases."98
this Court also applied Article 48 of the Revised Penal De los Santos, Abella, Garcia and Pincalin, therefore,
Code even though several acts were performed by the were exceptions to the general rule stated in Article 48
accused and conspiracy attended the commission of the which exceptions were drawn by the peculiar
crime. circumstance of the cases.

217
 AB
It may be mentioned that in People v. Sanidad,99 this “When an offense is the necessary means for committing
Court, once again, applied Article 48 of the Revised the other”
Penal Code although the circumstances of the case
were not the same as in Lawas, De los Santos, Abella, 1. People vs. Hernandez
Garcia and Pincalin, where this Court departed from the
general rule. Facts: On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time
before the said date and continuously thereafter, until the
In Sanidad, suddenly and without a warning, several present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and the
accused unleashed a volley of shots at the jeepney place which they had chosen as the nerve center of all
boarded by the victims. Miraculously, all passengers, their rebellious activities in the different parts of the
except Rolando Tugadi (Rolando), survived the ambush Philippines, the said accused, conspiring,
and suffered only minor injuries. Conspiracy attended confederating and cooperating with each other, as
the commission of the crime. Accused were convicted for well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in
the complex crime of murder and multiple attempted Criminal Cases Nos. 19071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and
murder. We there held that the case comes within the 14344 of the CFI of Manila (decided May 11, 1951)
purview of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Citing and also with others whose whereabouts and
Lawas and Abella, it was pronounced that although identities are still unknown, the said accused and
several independent acts were performed by the their other co-conspirators, being then high ranking
accused, it was not possible to determine who officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated
among them actually killed Rolando; and that there with the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.),
was no evidence that the accused intended to fire at which is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion
each and every one of the victims separately and against the Government of the Philippines thru act
distinctly from each other. On the premise that the theretofore committed and planned to be further
evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to committed in Manila and other places in the
kill Marlon Tugadi’s group as a whole, we repeated Philippines, and of which party the "Hukbong
that where a conspiracy animates several persons Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or
with a single purpose, their individual acts done in formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks),
pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a unlawfully and did then and there willfully,
single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote,
single complex offense. maintain, cause, direct and/or command the
"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the
The reliance in Sanidad, on Lawas and Abella is
"Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms
incorrect.
against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise
The application of the Abella doctrine, has already been participate in such armed public uprising, for the
clarified in Pincalin, thus: where several killings on the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines
same occasion were perpetrated, but not involving from the allegiance to the government and laws
prisoners, a different rule may be applied, that is to say, thereof as in fact the said "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng
the killings would be treated as separate offenses. Since Bayan" or "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken
in Sanidad, the killings did not involve prisoners or it was arms to attain the said purpose by then and there
not a case of prisoners killing fellow prisoners. As such, making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks
Abella would not apply. against police, constabulary and army detachments as
well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means
To repeat, in Lawas, this Court was merely forced to to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection
apply Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code because of therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and
the impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,
killed by each accused. Since conspiracy was not proven plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private
therein, joint criminal responsibility could not be and public property to create and spread chaos,
attributed to the accused. Each accused could not be disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
held liable for separate crimes because of lack of clear accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as.
evidence showing the number of persons actually killed follows, to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on
by each of them. government forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946,
August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19,
Proven conspiracy could have overcome the difficulty.
1947, June, 1946, April 28, 1949, August 25, 1950,
Our repeated ruling is that in conspiracy, the act of one August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950,
is the act of all. It is as though each one performed the March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950.)
act of each one of the conspirators. Each one is
That during the period of time and under the same
criminally responsible for each one of the deaths and
circumstances herein-above indicated the said accused
injuries of the several victims. The severalty of the acts
in the above-entitled case, conspiring among themselves
prevents the application of Article 48. The applicability of
and with several others as aforesaid, willfully, unlawfully
Article 48 depends upon the singularity of the act, thus
and feloniously organized, established, led and/or
the definitional phrase "a single act constitutes two or
maintained the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO),
more grave or less grave felonies." This is not an original
formerly known as the Committee on Labor
reading of the law. In People v. Hon. Pineda, the Court
Organizations (CLO), with central offices in Manila and
already recognized the "deeply rooted x x x doctrine
chapters and affiliated or associated labor unions and
that when various victims expire from separate
other "mass organizations" in different places in the
shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct
Philippines, as an active agency, organ, and
crimes." As we observed in People v. Tabaco,102
instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines
clarifying the applicability of Article 48 of the
(P.K.P.) and as such agency, organ, and instrumentality,
Revised Penal Code, this Court further stated in Hon.
to fully cooperate in, and synchronize its activities — as
Pineda that "to apply the first half of Article 48, x x x
the CLO thus organized, established, led and/or
there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity
maintained by the herein accused and their co-
of criminal impulse is not written into the law."
conspirators, has in fact fully cooperated in and
synchronized its activities with the activities of the
Complex crime proper (delito complejo) "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) and other
218
 AB
organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the circumstance of advantage taken by the offender of his
Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), to thereby public position, this being an essential element of the
assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and permanent crime he had perpetrated. Now, then, if the office held by
success of the above-mentioned armed rebellion against said offender and the nature of the funds malversed by
the Government of the Philippines. him cannot aggravate the penalty for his offense, it is
clear that neither may it worsen the very crime
Issue: committed by the culprit by giving rise, either to an
independent crime, or to a complex crime. Needless to
Ruling: We convicted the accused of simple treason say, a mere participant in the rebellion, who is not a
and sentenced him to life imprisonment. public officer, should not be placed at a more
disadvantageous position than the promoters,
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: maintainers or leaders of the movement, or the public
officers who join the same, insofar as the application of
"When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less Article 48 is concerned.
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious One of the means by which rebellion may be
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by
maximum period." "engaging in war against the forces of the
government" and "committing serious violence" in
It is obvious, from the language of this article, that the prosecution of said "war". These expressions
the same presupposes the commission of two (2) or imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort
more crimes, and, hence, does not apply when the to arms, requisition of property and services,
culprit is guilty of only one crime. collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of
liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and
Article 134 of said code reads: loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness
that war leaves in its wake except that, very often, it is
"The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed worse than war in the international sense, for it involves
by rising publicly and taking arms against the internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a
Government for the purpose of removing from the bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the contest between strangers. Being within the purview
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of "engaging in war" and "committing serious
of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or violence'", said resort to arms, with the resulting
of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, impairment or destruction of life and property,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or constitutes not two or more offense, but only one
prerogatives." crime that of rebellion plain and simple. Thus, for
instance, it has been held that "the crime of treason
Pursuant to Article 135 of the same code "any person, may be committed 'by executing either a single or
merely participating or executing the commands of similar intentional overt act, different or similar but
others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of distinct, and for that reason, it may be considered
prision mayor in its minimum period." one single continuous offense. (Guinto vs. Veluz, 77
Phil., 801, 44 Off. Gaz., 909.)" (Peoples. Pacheco, 93
The penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine Phil., 521.)
not to exceed P20,000 for "any person who
promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135
insurrection or who, while holding any public office constitute, we repeat, one single crime, it follows
or employment, takes part therein": necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the
application of Article 48, which requires therefor the
"engaging in war against the forces of the commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, this court
government", has never in the past, convicted any person of the
"complex crime of rebellion with murder". What is more,
"destroying property", or it appears that in every one of the cases of rebellion
"committing serious violence", published in the Philippine Reports, the defendants
were convicted of simple rebellion, although they
"exacting contributions or" had killed several persons, sometimes peace
officers.
"diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for
which they have been appropriated.” 2. Enrile vs. Salazar

Whether performed singly or collectively, these five Facts: In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate
(5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by
no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of
penalty, prision mayor and a fine not to exceed the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a
P20,000. warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the RTC of
Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941.
Thus, for instance, a public officer who assists the rebels The warrant had issued on an information signed and
by turning over to them, for use in financing the uprising, earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed
the public funds entrusted to his custody, could neither of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State
be prosecuted for malversation of such funds, apart from Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City
rebellion, nor accused and convicted of the complex Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator
crime of rebellion with malversation of public funds. The Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and
reason is that such malversation is inherent in the Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with
crime of rebellion committed by him. In fact, he murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly
would not be guilty of rebellion had he not so committed during the period of the failed coup
misappropriated said funds. In the imposition, upon attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
said public officer, of the penalty for rebellion it would Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the
even be improper to consider the aggravating NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail,
219
 AB
none having been recommended in the information and Ruling:
none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning,
February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas I. On the first option, eleven (11) Members of
Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the the Court voted against abandoning
custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police Hernandez. Two (2) Members felt that the
District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.3 doctrine should be re-examined. A In the
view of the majority, the ruling remains good
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, law, its substantive and logical bases have
through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus withstood all subsequent challenges and no
herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition new ones are presented here persuasive
filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of enough to warrant a complete reversal.
his constitutional rights.
Not too long ago, the incumbent President, exercising
The Court issued the writ prayed for, returnable March 5, her powers under the 1986 Freedom Constitution, saw fit
1990 and set the plea for hearing on March 6, 1990. On to repeal, among others, Presidential Decree No. 942 of
March 5, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated the former regime which precisely sought to nullify or
return for the respondents in this case and in G.R. No. neutralize Hernandez by enacting a new provision (Art.
92164 which had been contemporaneously but 142-A) into the Revised Penal Code to the effect that
separately filed by two of Senator Enrile's co-accused, "(w)hen by reason, or on the occasion, of any of the
the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and raised crimes penalized in this Chapter (Chapter I of Title 3,
similar questions. Said return urged that the petitioners' which includes rebellion), acts which constitute offenses
case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling because- upon which graver penalties are imposed by law are
and this is putting it very simply-the information in committed, the penalty for the most serious offense in its
Hernandez charged murders and other common maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender."'
crimes committed as a necessary means for the
commission of rebellion, whereas the information In thus acting, the President in effect by legislative flat
against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect
frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but of law. The Court can do no less than accord it the same
not in furtherance, of rebellion. Stated otherwise, the recognition, absent any sufficiently powerful reason
Solicitor General would distinguish between the complex against so doing.
crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being a II. The Court unanimously voted to reject the
necessary means for committing another, which is theory that Hernandez is, or should be,
referred to in the second clause of Article 48, Revised limited in its application to offenses
Penal Code, and is the subject of the Hernandez ruling, committed as a necessary means for the
and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising commission of rebellion and that the ruling
from a single act constituting two or more grave or less should not be interpreted as prohibiting the
grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the same complexing of rebellion with other common
paragraph, with which Hernandez was not concerned crimes committed on the occasion, but not in
and to which, therefore, it should not apply. furtherance, thereof.

The parties were heard in oral argument, as scheduled, There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that
on March 6, 1990, after which the Court issued its why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in
Resolution of the same date granting Senator Enrile and the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with
the Panlilio spouses provisional liberty conditioned upon rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately
their filing, within 24 hours from notice, cash or surety (assuming that this could be done), the following
bonds of P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely:
P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), respectively. (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding
P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period,
depending upon the modifying circumstances present,
Issue: The Court now addresses those issues insofar as but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2)
they are raised and litigated in Senator Enrile's petition, for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its
G.R. No. 92163. maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying
The parties' oral and written pleas presented the Court circumstances present. In other words, in the absence
with the following options: of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty
could not be imposed upon him. However, under
(a) abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to
expressed in the main dissent of Justice Montemayor in him, even in the absence of a single aggravating
said case that rebellion cannot absorb more serious circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be
Code rebellion may properly be complexed with common unfavorable to the movant.
offenses, so-called; this option was suggested by the
Solicitor General in oral argument although it is not Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for
offered in his written pleadings; the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing
him to a penalty more severe than that which would
(b) hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses be proper if the several acts performed by him were
committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means for punished separately.
the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in
the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there
crimes of grave or less grave character; can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that
prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In
(c) maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in
absorb all other offenses committed in its course, such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48
whether or not necessary to its commission or in could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a
furtherance thereof. penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for
each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this

220
 AB
benevolent spirit of article 48 is readily discernible. accused-appellant was seated on her right side and
When two or more crimes are the result of a single holding her, the Bombay-looking man proceeded to have
act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when sexual intercourse with her. She tried to kick him and
he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct close her legs, but two men were holding her feet. The
acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime two men boxed her thighs and burned her legs with
independently from the other, he must suffer the cigarettes.
maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on
the assumption that it is less grave than the sum After the Bombay-looking man finished having sexual
total of the separate penalties for each offense. intercourse with Cleopatra, accused-appellant took his
turn and went on top of her. One of the men sat on her
III. The Court rules further (by a vote of 11 to 3)
right leg and pinned it down, while another held her left
that the information filed against the
leg. Cleopatra tried to punch accused-appellant with her
petitioner does in fact charge an offense.
right hand, but the Bombay-looking man held her right
Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that
arm. Accused-appellant then had sexual intercourse with
would complex rebellion with murder and
her while holding her left arm.
multiple frustrated murder, that indictment is
to be read as charging simple rebellion.
The third man, whom Cleopatra noted had pimples on
In Hernandez, the Court said: his face, went on top of her. The Bombay-looking man
was still holding her right arm, while the man on top of
In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the her held her left arm. She tried to close her legs but
amended information against defendant-appellant someone hit her right thigh, which forced her to keep her
Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and legs apart. The third man with pimples succeeded in
robberies described therein are mere ingredients of having carnal knowledge of her.
the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said
defendants, as means "necessary" for the The fourth man was next in raping Cleopatra. By that
perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the time, she was feeling helpless and was too tired to
crime charged in the aforementioned amended struggle. As the fourth man was having sexual
information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the intercourse with her, she saw the Bombay-looking man
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, burning her panties with a lighted cigarette. She closed
arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty her eyes and heard the men laughing. After the fourth
imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) man finished raping her, he got up. She felt dizzy and
years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; and that, in her private parts were aching. She opened her eyes and
conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with tried to move, but accused-appellant hit her on the
accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said abdomen.
defendant may be allowed bail. 13
One of the men again sprayed something on Cleopatra’s
The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged
face which made her vision blurred. She heard
with a crime that does not exist in the statute books,
somebody say that it was 1:30. After that, she blacked
while technically correct so far as the Court has
out. When she regained consciousness, she was lying
ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other
by the roadside somewhere between Tam-awan and
offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must
Longlong. It was still dark. She already had her clothes
therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric.
on. She felt pain all over her body and was unable to
Read in the context of Hernandez, the information
move. A taxi passed by and picked her up. Although she
does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime
was afraid to ride the taxi, she boarded it just to get
defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code:
home. The taxi brought her to her house.
simple rebellion.
Her aunt, Rufina Angog, saw Cleopatra alight the taxi,
3. People vs. Garcia crying. She also noticed that Cleopatra’s clothes were
inverted and she smelled bad. She woke up Cleopatra’s
Facts: The victim, Cleopatra Changlapon, was nineteen brothers and cousins. They asked her what happened.
years old and a sophomore student of B.S. Physical Cleopatra just kept crying and was unable to talk. After
Therapy at the Baguio Central University. On July 14, some time, when she was able to regain her composure,
1998, she left school at 6:30 p.m. to go home to Km. 3, she told them that she had been raped by four men.
La Trinidad, Benguet. As she was crossing Bonifacio
Street, Baguio City, she saw a white van approaching so Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding Jeffrey
she stopped to let it pass. Suddenly, the van stopped in Garcia guilty for the complex crime of forcible
front of her. The rear door slid open and Cleopatra was abduction with rape and for three counts of rape
pulled by the arms into the van. She struggled as the committed in conspiracy with three others.
door closed and the van sped away. Something was
sprayed on her face which made her eyes sting and feel Ruling:
dizzy. She shouted, then she felt a fist blow on her I. The trial court did not err in convicting
stomach and she fell unconscious. accused-appellant of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape.
When Cleopatra regained her consciousness, she found
The two elements of forcible abduction, as defined in
herself inside a room. She was totally undressed and
Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (1) the
was lying flat on her back on a bed. In the room with her
taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd
were four men. One of them, who had Bombay features,
designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is
was also totally naked while the other three were clad in
a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal
briefs and smoking cigarettes. The Bombay-looking man
knowledge with the abducted woman under the
lay on top of her. She tried to push him away but he held
following circumstances: (1) by using force or
her left arm. Another man with long hair, whom she later
intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of
identified as accused-appellant Jeffrey Garcia, burned
reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the
her right chin with a lighted cigarette. Cleopatra fought
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
back but accused-appellant held her right arm. While
221
 AB
In the case at bar, the information sufficiently alleged the During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain
elements of forcible abduction, i.e., the taking of irregularities concerning the release of loans were
complainant against her against her will and with lewd discovered.
design. It was likewise alleged that accused-appellant
and his three co-accused conspired, confederated and Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification
mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge of commercial documents were filed against Batulanon.
of complainant by means of force and intimidation and
against her will.
Criminal Case No. 3625
Aside from alleging the necessary elements of the
crimes, the prosecution convincingly established that the  Accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok
carnal knowledge was committed through force and Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of
intimidation. Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving
proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant payments to, and collections of, the same, and paying out
loans to members, taking advantage of her position and
succeeded in forcibly abducting the complainant with
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did
lewd designs, established by the actual rape. then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a
commercial document.
Hence, accused-appellant is guilty of the complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape. He should also be held
 Cash/Check Voucher No. 30-A of PCCI in the name of
liable for the other three counts of rape committed by his
Erlinda Omadlao by then and there making an entry
three co-accused, considering the clear conspiracy therein that the said Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan
among them shown by their obvious concerted efforts to of P4,160, Philippine Currency, and by signing on the
perpetrate, one after the other, the crime. As borne by appropriate line thereon the signature of Erlinda Omadlao
the records, all the four accused helped one another in showing that she received the loan, thus making it appear
that the said Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan and
consummating the rape of complainant. While one of
received the amount of P4,160.
them mounted her, the other three held her arms and
legs. They also burned her face and extremities with
 When in truth and in fact the said person was never
lighted cigarettes to stop her from warding off her granted a loan, never received the same, and never
aggressor. Each of them, therefore, is responsible not signed the cash/check voucher issued in her name.
only for the rape committed personally by him but for the
rape committed by the others as well.  And in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent
design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there
II. However, as correctly held by the trial court, release to herself the same and received the loan of
there can only be one complex crime of P4,160 and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her
forcible abduction with rape. own use and benefit the said amount, and despite
 The girl was only forcibly abducted ONCE. demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to
the damage and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned
The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary amount of P4,160, Philippine Currency.5
for the first rape. Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can
no longer be considered as separate complex crimes of Criminal Case No. 3626
forcible abduction with rape. They should be detached
from and considered independently of the forcible  Accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok
abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant should be Credit Cooperative, Inc. (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of
managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving
convicted of one complex crime of forcible abduction
payments to, and collections of, the same, and paying out
with rape and three separate acts of rape. loans to members taking advantage of her position and
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a
most serious crime which shall be imposed in its commercial document.
maximum period. Rape is the more serious of the two
crimes and, when committed by more than two persons,  Cash/Check Voucher No. 237 A of PCCI in the name of
is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under Gonafreda Oracion by then and there making an entry
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended therein that the said Gonafreda Oracion was granted a
by Republic Act No. 8353. Thus, accused-appellant loan of P4,000.00 and by signals on the appropriate line
thereon the signature of Gonafreda Oracion showing that
should be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death
she received the loan, thus making it appear that the said
for forcible abduction with rape. Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan, received the loan
of P4,000.00.
4. Batulanon vs. People

Facts:  When in truth and in fact said person was never granted a
loan, never received the same, and never signed the
Version of the Prosecution Cash/Check voucher issued in her name, and in
furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to
This petition assails the October 30, 1998 Decision of defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15221, affirming herself the same and received the amount of P4,000.00
and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her own use
with modification the April 15, 1993 Decision of the RTC
and benefit the said amount, and despite demands,
of General Santos City, Branch 22 in Criminal Case Nos. refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to the
3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627, convicting Leonila damage and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned
Batulanon of estafa through falsification of amount of P4,000, Philippine Currency.
commercial documents, and the July 29, 1999
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Criminal Case No. 3453

Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated  Accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok
(PCCI) employed Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of
from May 1980 up to December 22, 1982. She was in managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving
charge of receiving deposits from and releasing payments to, and collection of the same and paying out
loans to the member of the cooperative. loans to members, taking advantage of her position and
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did

222
 AB
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a passed a resolution in August 1982 authorizing her to
commercial document. certify to the correctness of the entries in the vouchers;
that it has become an accepted practice in the
 An Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Ferlyn cooperative for her to release loans and dispense with
Arroyo with the PCCI by then and there entering on the the approval of Gopio Jr., in case of his absence; that
appropriate column of the ledger the entry that the said she signed the loan application and voucher of her son
Ferlyn Arroyo had a fixed deposit of P1,000.00 with the
PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P3,500.00, Dennis Batulanon because he was a minor but she
thus making it appear that the said person made a fixed clarified that she asked Gopio, Jr., to add his signature
deposit on the aforesaid date with, and was granted a loan on the documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity; that
by the PCCI. contrary to the testimony of Gopio, Jr., minors are
eligible for membership in the cooperative provided they
 When in truth and in fact Ferlyn Arroyo never made such a are children of regular members.
deposit and was never granted loan and after the
document was so falsified in the manner set forth, said Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son's
accused did then and there again falsify the Cash/Check name because she is no longer qualified for another loan
Voucher of the PCCI in the name of Ferlyn Arroyo by as she still has to pay off an existing loan; that she had
signing therein the signature of Ferlyn Arroyo, thus making
it appear that the said Ferlyn Arroyo received the loan of started paying off her son's loan but the cooperative
P3,500, Philippine Currency, when in truth and in fact said refused to accept her payments after the cases were
Ferlyn Arroyo never received the loan. filed in court. She also declared that one automatically
becomes a member when he deposits money with the
 And in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent cooperative. When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI
design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there from 1980 to 1982, the cooperative did not have by-laws
release to herself the same, and received the amount of yet.
P3,500, and thereafter, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to
her own personal use and benefit the said amount, and Issue: As there is no complex crime of estafa through
despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the falsification of private document, it is important to
same, to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with
aforementioned amount of P3,500, Philippine Currency. falsification of a private document or with estafa.

Criminal Case No. 3627 Ruling:

I.
 Accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok If the falsification of a private document is
Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI) entrusted with the duty of committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper
managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving
payments to, and collection of, the same and paying out
crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can
loans to members, taking advantage of her position and be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a In view of the foregoing, we find that the Court of
commercial document. Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents
 An Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Dennis in Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453.
Batulanon with the PCCI by then and there entering on the
appropriate column of the ledger the entry that the said
Dennis Batulanon had a fixed deposit of P2,000.00 II. It was an error for the courts below to hold
with the PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of
P5,000.00 thus making it appear that the said person falsification of private document with respect
made fixed deposit on the aforesaid date with, and was to Criminal Case No. 3627 involving the cash
granted a loan by the PCCI. voucher of Dennis.

 When in truth and in fact Dennis Batulanon never made However, in Criminal Case No. 3627, the crime
such a deposit and was never granted loan and offer the
committed by Batulanon is estafa and not falsification.
document was so falsified in the manner set forth, said
accused did then and there again falsify the Cash/Check Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the acts
Voucher No. 374 A of PCCI in the name of Dennis that may constitute falsification are the following:
Batulanon by signing therein the signature of Dennis
Batulanon, thus making it appear that the said Dennis 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature,
Batulanon received the loan of P5,000.00 when in truth
or rubric;
and in fact said Dennis Batulanon never received the loan.
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
 And in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent
participate;
design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there
release to herself the same and receive the loan of 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act
P5,000, and thereafter, did then and there willfully, or proceeding statements other than those in fact made
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to by them;
her own personal use and benefit the said amount, and 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
[despite] demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the
5. Altering true dates;
same to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the
aforementioned amount of P5,000, Philippine Currency. 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
Version of the Defense
purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She such original exists, or including in such copy a
claimed that she did not sign the vouchers in the statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
names of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the genuine original; or;
same were signed by the loan applicants in her 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
presence at the PCCI office after she personally issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
released the money to them; that the three were
members of the cooperative as shown by their individual In Criminal Case No. 3627, the trial court convicted
deposits and the ledger; that the board of directors petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis Batulanon's

223
 AB
signature in the cash voucher based on the Information February, 1954 to September, 1955, in the City of
charging her of signing the name of her 3 year old son, Manila:
Dennis. The records, however, reveal that in Cash
Voucher No. 374A, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify "That simultaneously on the same date, the same
the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: accused-appellee Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales was
"by: Batulanon" to indicate that she received the charged together with Angelita Centeno, Anita
proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act Paggabao, Lourdes Alburo, Remedios Serrano, Julia
does not fall under any of the modes of falsification Carpio, Calixto Hermosa and Crispula R. Pagaran alias
under Article 171 because there in nothing untruthful 'Pula', with the crime of falsification of public
about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and documents under 27 separate informations filed
that as representative of the latter, obtained the before the same CFI of Manila. In said 27 separate
proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The essence of informations, the eight accused were alleged to have
falsification is the act of making untruthful or false conspired in the commission of said offense in or
statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to about and during the period comprised between
whether, such representation involves fraud which December, 1954 and September, 1955, by having
caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which allegedly caused it to appear: that cash aids were
will make her liable for estafa, but not for given when no such aids were indeed distributed to
falsification. the persons named and at the time and place and in
such amounts specified, or by making and/or
causing it to appear that certain relief supplies or
The elements of estafa through conversion or merchandise were purchased by the accused Pacita
misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Madrigal-Gonzales when in truth and in fact no such
Penal Code are: relief supplies were purchased, thereby making
(1) That money, goods or other personal property is untruthful statements in a narration of fact in said
received by the offender in trust, or on commission, public and official documents. The aforesaid
or for administration, or under any other obligation separate informations for falsification were couched
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, in the same form and language, alleged the same
the same – In the instant case, there is no doubt that period of time of the commission of the felonious
as Cashier/Manager, Batulanon holds the money for acts, i.e., between December, 1954, and September,
administration and in trust for PCCI. 1955, and invariably described only two different
(2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such modes of commission of the alleged falsifications, to
money or property by the offender or denial on his wit:
part of such receipt – Knowing that she is no longer
qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently used the "... by taking advantage of their official positions falsified
name of her son who is likewise disqualified to and/or caused to be falsified the following described
secure a loan from PCCI. Her misappropriation of public documents by making and/or causing it to appear
the amount she obtained from the loan is also not that certain cash aids were distributed and given
disputed as she even admitted receiving the same personally by said PACITA MADRIGAL GONZALES
for personal use. (formerly Pacita M. Warns) to the persons named, and at
the time and place and in such amounts specified, in
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial said public documents when in truth and in fact no such
is to the prejudice of another – Although the amount cash aids were ever distributed or given personally by
received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as said accused PACITA MADRIGAL GONZALES (formerly
part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still Pacita M. Warns) to said persons named, at the time and
caused to the latter because the sum place and in such amounts specified, in the following
misappropriated by her could have been loaned by described public documents, and otherwise making
PCCI to qualified members, or used in other untruthful statements or narration of fact in the said
productive undertakings. public and official documents to the effect that social
cases studies had been made when in truth and in fact
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended party no such social case studies were ever made, ...."
on the offender. (Note: The 4th element is not necessary
when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods "... by taking advantage of their official positions, falsified
by the defendant) and/or caused to be falsified the following described
public documents by making and/or causing it to appear
At any rate, the disturbance in property rights caused by that certain relief supplies or merchandise were
Batulanon's misappropriation is in itself sufficient to purchased by said accused PACITA MADRIGAL
constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315. GONZALES (formerly Pacita M. Warns),in such
quantities and at such prices, from such business
Continuing crime (delito continuado) establishments or persons as appear to be specified in
“A single crime, consisting of a series of acts but arising the following described public documents, when in truth
from one criminal resolution” and in fact no such relief supplies or merchandise were
purchased by the accused PACITA MADRIGAL
1. People vs. Madrigal-Gonzales GONZALES (formerly Pacita M. Warns) in such
quantities and at such prices, at such times and places
Facts: On or about August 23, 1956, the herein and from such business establishments or persons as
accused-appellee Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales was are mentioned and specified in the said public
charged with malversation of public funds, in the documents, and otherwise making untruthful statements
amount of P104,000.00 before the CFI of Manila, said or narration of facts in the said public and official
case having been docketed as Criminal Case No. 36877 documents to the effect that such relief supplies as are
of said Court, under an information alleging that said appearing to have been purchased by the accused
accused, while administrator of the Social Welfare PACITA MADRIGAL GONZALES (formerly Pacita M.
Administration (SWA), appropriated, took and Warns) at such prices and from such persons or
misappropriated the said amount on five different business establishments, at such times and places,
occasions comprised within the period from mentioned in the following described public and official
224
 AB
documents, were immediately distributed to calamity and consummated when, with intent to prejudice a
victims or sufferers when in truth and in fact no such third person, the first pawn ticket was actually
distributions of such relief supplies, valued and falsified; and a wholly separate and distinct crime
purchased by said accused PACITA MADRIGAL was initiated and consummated when the second
GONZALES (formerly Pacita M. Warns) at so such ticket was falsified. That both documents may have
prices as are mentioned and stated in said public and been falsified to be used together in the perpetration
official documents, were ever made, ...." of an embezzlement in no wise affects the case, as
under the definition of the crime of falsification of
That on the same date, August 23, 1956, and private documents set out in Article 304 of the Penal
accompanying the filing of said 27 separate informations Code, the crime is consummated and complete at
for falsification and one single information for the moment when such a document is actually
malversation, the prosecution filed ex parte petition falsified, to the prejudice of, or with intent to
for the consolidation of all said 27 falsification cases prejudice a third person, it matters not to what use
and one malversation case before only one branch the document may be put thereafter. ..."
or sala of the CFI of Manila. II. Upon the basis of the above authorities, we
need not proceed any further to determine
Issue: whether the 27 falsifications perpetrated on
I. Whether or not the twenty-seven (27) separate vouchers, at different dates and in
falsifications were the product of only one various amounts, constitute 27 separate and
criminal intent. independent crimes, which were not continuous.
II. Whether the Orders of the three (3) different It becomes, likewise, unnecessary to inquire into
branches of the Manila CFI, acquitting the the merits of the question of double jeopardy,
accused, constitute a bar to the prosecution of
the remaining 22 falsification charges, filed 2. Gamboa vs. CA
against the same accused-appellees, which
were lodged and still pending resolution with the Facts: This is a petition to review on certiorari the
other branches of said Court on the ground of judgment of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
double jeopardy. No. SP-03877, promulgated on July 17, 1975, which We
treat as special civil action (SC Resolution of September
Ruling: 2, 1975), involving the proper appreciation of the rule on
plurality of crimes, otherwise known as "concursus
I. The appellees seem to confuse motive with delictuorum", and the theory of "continuous crime"
criminal intent.
The private respondent Benjamin Lu Hayco was a
Motive is not an element of a felony; it is merely a former employee of petitioner company in its optical
prospectant circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent supply business at Sta. Cruz, Manila. On January 5,
renders an act a felony. 1973, one hundred twenty-four (124) complaints of
In other words, the existence of the motive to conceal estafa under Article 315, para. 1-b of the Revised
malversation, in the cases at bar, is a question of Penal Code were filed against him by the petitioner
fact which should be ventilated in a formal trial, in company with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila.
connection with the defense of double jeopardy. The After the procedural preliminary investigation, the Office
Court cannot assume that the purpose of committing of the City Fiscal filed seventy-five (75) cases of estafa
the twenty-seven (27) falsifications was to conceal against private respondent before the City Court of
the malversation. This is so because there is no Manila. Except as to the dates and amounts of
showing that for every particular amount, they had conversions, the 75 informations commonly charge
malversated on a certain period, they had purposely that "... the said accused, being then an employee of
perpetrated the corresponding falsification to cover the Units Optical Supply Company ..., and having
up such amount, until the whole amount proposed to collected and received from customers of the said
be malversated, shall have been completely company the sum of ... in payment for goods
misappropriated. In the absence of such showing, it is purchased from it, under the express obligation on
to be presumed that in the falsification of each the part of the said accused to immediately account
document, the criminal intent was separated and distinct. for and deliver the said collection so made by him to
the Units Optical Supply Company or the owners
In effect, it will be noted that although all the thereof ..., far from complying with his said aforesaid
informations in the 27 falsification cases were obligation and despite repeated demands made
uniformly worded, the numbers of the vouchers upon him ... did then and there ... misappropriate,
alleged to have been falsified and the amounts misapply and convert the said sum to his own
thereof are different. personal use and benefit by depositing the said
amount in his own name and personal account with
These undeniable facts, alleged in the informations,
the Associated Banking Corporation under Account
evidently show that different acts of falsification
No. 171 (or with the Equitable Banking Corporation
were committed on different vouchers and covering
under Account No. 707), and thereafter withdrawing
distinct amounts. Each information did not refer to all
the same ..."
said acts of falsification. Neither is there merit in the
argument that said acts of falsification constituted a
A civil action for accounting (docketed as Civil Case No.
continuing offense, so as to have them all prosecuted in
89373 of the CFI of Manila) was likewise filed by Lu
only one information.
Chiong Sun, the owner of the Units Optical Supply
 US vs. Infante & Barreto: "The two pawn tickets Company, complaining that during his hospital
were wholly separate and distinct documents. They confinement from September 27, 1972 to October 30,
had no relation to each other as members of a series 1972, private respondent initiated discharging the
of instruments, so intimately related, that the business functions and prerogatives of the company.
falsification of one individual of the series would be, And to paint a shade of validity to this exercise of
in effect, a falsification of the entire series. The crime powers, private respondent, thru fraud, deceit and
of falsification of a private document was completed machinations duped Lu Chiong Sun into affixing his
225
 AB
signature and thumbprint on a general power of attorney necessary means for committing another offense
in his (private respondent's) favor. With the use of this (described as "delito complejo" or complex proper).
deed, private respondent closed the accounts of Lu "Real plurality" or "concurso real", on the other
Chiong Sun with the Equitable Banking Corporation and, hand, arises when the accused performs an act or
thereafter, opened accounts in his own name with the different acts with distinct purposes and resulting in
same bank and with the Associated Banking different crimes which are juridically independent.
Corporation. Unlike "ideal plurality", this "real plurality" is not
governed by Article 48.
While the criminal suits in particular were pending trial on
the merits before the twelve branches of the City Court
of Manila, private respondent commenced on May 15, Apart and isolated from this plurality of crimes (ideal or
1974 a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction real) is what is known as "delito continuado" or
before the CFI of Manila (Branch XV) against the "continuous crime". This is a single crime consisting
petitioners herein and the City Court Judges of Manila, of a series of acts arising from a single criminal
claiming that the filing, prosecution and trial of the resolution or intent not susceptible of division. For
seventy-five (75) estafa cases against him is not only Cuello Calon, when the actor, there being unity of
oppressive, whimsical and capricious, but also without or purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each
in excess of jurisdiction of the respondents City Fiscal of which, although of a delictual character, merely
and the City Court Judges of Manila. Private respondent constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
asserts that all the indictments narrated in the seventy- delict, such concurrence or delictual acts is called a
five (75) informations were mere components of only one "delito continuado". In order that it may exist, there
crime, since the same were only impelled by a single should be "plurality of acts performed separately during
criminal resolution or intent. On October 31, 1974, the a period of time; unity of penal provision infringed upon
lower court dismissed the petition on the ground that the or violated and unity of criminal intent and purpose,
series of deposits and the subsequent withdrawals which means that two or more violations of the same
thereof involved in the criminal cases were not the result penal provision are united in one and the same intent
of only one criminal impulse on the part of private leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose
respondent. or aim."

As a consequence, private respondent Benjamin Lu In People v. Pineda, the court even expressed that "to
Hayco appealed to the Court of Appeals. On July 17, apply the first half of Article 48, ... there must be
1975, the Appellate Court reversed the order of the lower singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse
court and granted the petition for prohibition. It directed is not written into the law." Prior jurisprudence holds that
the respondent City Fiscal "to cause the dismissal of the where the defendant took the thirteen cows at the same
seventy-five (75) criminal cases filed against petitioner- time and in the same place where he found them
appellant, to consolidate in one information all the grazing, he performed but one act of theft.8 Or, the act of
charges contained in the seventy-five (75) informations taking the two roosters, in response to the unity of
and to file the same with the proper court." thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion,
constitutes a single crime of theft. There is no series of
Issue: Whether or not the basic accusations contained acts committed for the accomplishment of different
in the seventy-five (75) informations against private purposes, but only of one which was consummated, and
respondent constitute but a single crime of estafa. which determines the existence of only one crime. The
act of taking the roosters in the same place and on the
Ruling: It is not difficult to resolve whether a given set of same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an
facts constitutes a single act which produces two or independent existence of their own, because there are
more grave or less grave offenses or a complex crime not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that
under the definition of Article 48. So long as the act or characterize two separate crimes. 9
acts complained of resulted from a single criminal
In the case before Us, the daily abstractions from and
impulse it is usually held to constitute a single offense to
diversions of private respondent of the deposits made by
be punished with the penalty corresponding to the most
the customers of the optical supply company from
serious crime, imposed in its maximum period. The test
October 2, 1972 to December 30, 1972, excluding
is not whether one of the two offenses is an essential
Saturdays and Sundays, which We assume ex
element of the other.
hypothesi, cannot be considered as proceeding from
a single criminal act within the meaning of Article 48.
It is provided in Article 48 of our Revised Penal Code, as The abstractions were not made at the same time
amended by Act No. 4000, that "(w)hen a single act and on the same occasion, but on variable dates.
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or Each day of conversion constitutes a single act with
when an offense is a necessary means for committing an independent existence and criminal intent of its
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be own. All the conversions are not the product of a
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period." consolidated or united criminal resolution, because
The intention of the Code in installing this particular each conversion is a complete act by itself.
provision is to regulate the two cases of concurrence or Specifically, the abstractions and the accompanying
plurality of crimes which in the field of legal doctrine are deposits thereof in the personal accounts of private
called "real plurality" and "ideal plurality". There is respondent cannot be similarly viewed as "continuous
plurality of crimes or "concurso de delitos" when the crime". In the above formulation of Cuello Calon, we
actor commits various delictual acts of the same or cannot consider a defalcation on a certain day as merely
different kind. "Ideal plurality" or "concurso ideal" constitutive of partial execution of estafa under Article
occurs when a single act gives rise to various 315, para. 1-b of the Revised Penal Code. As earlier
infractions of law (Ideal plurality = Art. 48, RPC). This pointed out, an individual abstraction or
is illustrated by the very article under consideration: (a) misappropriation results in a complete execution or
when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less consummation of the delictual act of defalcation.
grave felonies (described as "delito compuesto" or Private respondent cannot be held to have
compound crime); and (b) when an offense is a entertained continously the same criminal intent in
making the first abstraction on October 2, 1972 for
226
 AB
the subsequent abstractions on the following days Mallari and Atty. Hallazgo introduced to Remegio
and months until December 30, 1972, for the simple Tapawan as Leonora Balderas. Thereafter, the
reason that he was not possessed of any fore- mortgage deeds where prepared in favor of Julia
knowledge of any deposit by any customer on any Saclolo and the other in favor of Remegio Tapawan
day or occasion and which would pass on to his for P1,500.00 each. The mortgage loan of P3,000.00
possession and control. was accordingly delivered to the person who posed
as Leonora Balderas. Consuelo Mallari and Domingo
3. People vs. Mallari Espinelli, assigned as witnesses to the said
documents. Later, during the preliminary
Facts: Petitioner Consuelo E. Mallari, with three (3) investigation at the Fiscal's Office, Tapawan learned
others, was accused of the crime of Estafa thru that he was tolled (sic) because the person who
Falsification of Public Document before the then CFI posed as Leonora Balderas was a man by the name
of Manila (Criminal Case No. 9800). As the other of Carlos Sunga, who, at the time the mortgage was
accused were at large, the case proceeded only with constituted, was dressed in a woman's attire. Neither
respect to Consuelo Mallari, who, upon arraignment, Remegio Tapawan nor Julia Saclolo were able to
pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted; after which, recover a portion of the mortgage loan.
the court rendered judgment finding Consuelo
Mallari guilty of the crime charged and sentencing Issue: To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three (3)
her to imprisonment of one (1) year and to indemnify requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have
the offended party Remegio Tapawan in the amount attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must
of P1,500.00 and to pay the costs. have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
Petitioner's appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed With the prior conviction by a final judgment of petitioner
as CA G.R. No. 19849-CR, resulted in the affirmance for the crime of estafa thru falsification of public
of the trial court's decision with a modification as to document in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR, there is no
the penalty. In lieu of the straight penalty of one (1) question that the first and second requisites above
year, an indeterminate sentence of four (4) months and enumerated are present in the case at bar. The problem
one (1) day as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) then lies with the third requisite. Is the crime
months, as maximum, was imposed on petitioner. charged in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR the same as in this
case (CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR)?
In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner
contended that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 19849- Ruling: Petitioner, having already been convicted of
CR placed her twice in jeopardy of being punished the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of
for the same offense as she had previously been public document in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR, it stands
convicted, sentenced and probationed for the same to reason that she can no longer be held liable for
offense in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR entitled "People of the same crime in this case.
the Philippines versus Consuelo Mallari."
A comparison of the Informations filed in the two
cases under consideration as well as the findings of
Unconvinced, the appellate court denied the motion for
facts of the appellate court tells us that they refer to
reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for review.
the same series of acts. These series of acts amount to
what is known in law as a continued, continuous or
Testimony of Remegio Tapawan
continuing offense.
In CA-G.R. No. 20817, the Court of Appeals made the
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a series
following observations:
of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. It is a
... Testifying for the prosecution, witness Remegio continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a
Tapawan explained how Julia Saclolo became the single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force,
mortgagee of the land in question by declaring that the however long a time it may occupy. Although there are
accused Consuelo E. Mallari herein after referred to series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence,
as the appellant, whom he had known since only one penalty shall be imposed.
childhood came to his house in Rosario, Cavite on
December 10, 1970, bringing two (2) land titles both The crime of estafa thru falsification of public
in the name of Leonora Balderas and told him that document committed by Consuelo Mallari, although
she wanted to mortgage the titles for P1,500.00 each consummated through a series of acts, was 'set on
because she and her cousin Leonora Balderas were foot' by the single intent or impulse to defraud
in great need of money to pay some taxes with the Remegio Tapawan of a total amount of P3,000.00.
Bureau of Customs where they have some goods And contrary to the appellate court's observation, there
impounded. Not having enough money Tapawan was only one deceit practiced by petitioner on the
refused. The appellant, however, returned on two (2) victims, i.e. that being in need of money,
December 15, 1970 with two titles and pleaded anew Leonora Balderas was willing to mortgage two (2)
with Remegio Tapawan and his wife for assistance lots as security for a loan of P3,000.00. It was, in fact,
because of her and Balderas great need of money. by mere play of fate that the second victim, Julia
Tapawan gave in but because he had only P1,500.00 Saclolo, should be dragged into the swindle by
while the accused needed P3,000.00 he took her to reason of Tapawan having only P1,500.00 at that
his mother-in-law, Julia Saclolo and was able to time. That there were two (2) victims, however, did
secure the amount of P1,500.00. not accordingly convert the crime into two separate
offenses, as the determinative factor is the unity or
On the information given by Consuelo Mallari that the multiplicity of the criminal intent or of the
deed of mortgage would be prepared in the office of Atty. transactions for "the fact should not be lost sight of that
Celestino Hallazgo at M.H. del Pilar, Manila where the it is the injury to the public which a criminal action seeks
mortgagor Leonora Balderas would show up, Tapawan to redress, and by such redress to prevent its repetition,
proceeded to the place indicated. Immediately upon and not the injury to individuals."
Tapawan's arrival, Atty. Hallazgo phoned someone and
within 20 minutes the person arrived whom Consuelo
227
 AB
The singularity of the offense committed by petitioner is On November 12, 1992 and upon motion of petitioner in
further demonstrated by the fact that the falsification of G.R. No. 107598 (Miriam Defensor Santiago v.
the two (2) public documents as a means of Sandiganbayan, et al.), we directed the Sandiganbayan
committing estafa were performed on the same date, (First Division) to reset the arraignment to a later date
in the same place, at the same time and on the same and to dispose of the two incidents pending before it (Re:
occasion. This Court has held in the case of People v. disqualification of Presiding Justice Garchitorena and the
de Leon, that the act of taking two or more roosters in motion for the bill of particulars).
the same place and on the same occasion is dictated by
only one criminal design and therefore, there is only one At the hearing on November 13, 1992 on the motion
crime of theft even if the roosters are owned by different for a bill of particulars, the prosecution stated
persons. categorically that they would file only one amended
information against petitioner.
It has also been ruled that when two informations refer
to the same transaction, the second charge cannot However, on December 8, 1992, the prosecution filed
prosper because the accused will thereby be placed a motion to admit the 32 Amended Informations.
in jeopardy for the second time for the same offense.
On March 3, 1993, Presiding Justice Garchitorena
4. Santiago vs. Garchitorena issued the questioned Resolution dated March 11, 1993,
denying the motion for his disqualification (Rollo, pp.
Facts: On May 1, 1991, petitioner was charged in 151-164).
Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan with
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as On March 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan (First Division)
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and promulgated a resolution, admitting the 32 Amended
Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her Informations and ordering petitioner to post the
favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the corresponding bail bonds within ten days from notice
Alien Legalization Program. (Rollo, pp. 165-185). Petitioner's arraignment on the 32
Amended Informations was set for April 12, 1993 at 8:00
On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed with us a petition for A.M. (Rollo, p. 186).
certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 99289-
99290 (Santiago v. Vasquez, 205 SCRA 162 [1992]), to Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal
Case No. 16698 on the ground that said case was Issue:
intended solely to harass her as she was then a
presidential candidate. She alleged that this was in Ruling: We find that, technically, there was only one
violation of Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution crime that was committed in petitioner's case, and
which provides that "bona fide candidates for any public hence, there should only be one information to be
office shall be free from any form of harassment and file against her.
discrimination." The petition was dismissed on January The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known
13, 1992. as delito continuado or "continued crime" and
sometimes referred to as "continuous crime."
On October 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for
inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, which
motion was set for hearing on November 13, 1992 at According to Cuello Calon, for delito continuado to exist
8:00 A.M. there should be a plurality of acts performed during
a period of time; unity of penal provision violated;
On October 27, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means
Division), of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a that two or more violations of the same penal
member, set the criminal case for arraignment on provisions are united in one and same instant or
November 13, 1992 at 8:00 A.M. resolution leading to the perpetration of the same
criminal purpose or aim (II Derecho Penal, p. 520; I
On November 6, 1992, petitioner moved to defer the Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 630, 1987 ed.).
arraignment on the grounds that there was a pending
According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito
motion for inhibition, and that petitioner intended to file a
continuado consists of several crimes but in reality, there
motion for a bill of particulars.
is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator
(Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, 1957 ed., p.
 Bill of particulars (explained) – A defendant in a criminal
case who believes that he is not sufficiently informed of
102; Penal Science and Philippine Criminal Law, p. 152).
the crime with which he is charged and is not in a position Padilla views such offense as consisting of a series of
to defend himself properly and adequately could move for
acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution
a bill of particulars or specifications.
(Criminal Law, 1988 ed. pp. 53-54).
On November 9, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First
Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the Code
Division) denied the motion to defer the arraignment.
shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter
provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed
On November 10, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for a
from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary
bill of particulars. The motion stated that while the
capacity to crimes punished under special laws.
information alleged that petitioner had approved the
application or legalization of "aliens" and gave them
The trend in theft cases is to follow the so-called "single
indirect benefits and advantages it lacked a list of
larceny" doctrine, that is, the taking of several things,
the favored aliens. According to petitioner, unless
whether belonging to the same or different owners, at
she was furnished with the names and identities of
the same time and place constitutes but one larceny.
the aliens, she could not properly plead and prepare
Many courts have abandoned the "separate larceny
for trial.
doctrine," under which there is a distinct larceny as to
the property of each victim. Also abandoned was the
228
 AB
doctrine that the government has the discretion to After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, petitioner
prosecute the accused or one offense or for as many elevated the matter to the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 157
distinct offenses as there are victims (annotation, 37 (RTC), in a petition for certiorari (S.C.A. No. 2803).
ALR 3rd 1407, 1410-1414). Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC the
suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366,
In the case at bench, the original information charged including the arraignment on 17 May 2005, invoking
petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of S.C.A. No. 2803 as a prejudicial question. Without acting
her approving the application for legalization of aliens not on petitioner’s motion, the MeTC proceeded with the
qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. arraignment and, because of petitioner’s absence,
The original information also averred that the criminal act cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.4 Seven days
: (i) committed by petitioner was in violation of a law — later, the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s
Executive Order No. 324 dated motion to suspend proceedings and postponing his
arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought
April 13, 1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the
offended party, the Government, and (iii) was done on a motion remained unresolved.
single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
Relying on the arrest order against petitioner,
The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the
respondent Ponce sought in the RTC the dismissal of
allegation of the original information, except that instead
S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioner’s loss of standing to
of the word "aliens" in the original information each
maintain the suit. Petitioner contested the motion.
amended information states the name of the individual
whose stay was legalized.
Issue:
At the hearing of the motion for a bill of particulars, the I. Whether petitioner’s constitutional right under
public prosecutors manifested that they would file only the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further
one amended information embodying the legalization of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366.
stay of the 32 aliens. As stated in the Order dated II. Should Article 48’s framework apply to
November 12, 1992 of the Sandiganbayan (First "complex" the single quasi-offense with its
Division): multiple (non-criminal) consequences (excluding
those amounting to light offenses which will be
On the matter of the Bill of Particulars, the prosecution tried separately)? Or should the prosecution
has conceded categorically that the accusation against proceed under a single charge, collectively
Miriam Defensor Santiago consists of one violation of the alleging all the consequences of the single
law represented by the approval of the applications of 32 quasi-crime, to be penalized separately following
foreign nationals for availment (sic) of the Alien the scheme of penalties under Article 365?
Legalization Program. In this respect, and responding Ruling:
directly to the concerns of the accused through counsel,
the prosecution is categorical that there will not be 32 I. The two charges against petitioner, arising
accusations but only one . . . (Rollo, p. 59). from the same facts, were prosecuted under
the same provision of the Revised Penal
The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses
Code, as amended, namely, Article 365
were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or
defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even
exists that the approval of the application or the Structurally, these nine paragraphs are collapsible into
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a four sub-groupings relating to (1) the penalties attached
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was to the quasi-offenses of "imprudence" and "negligence"
embodied in the same document. (paragraphs 1-2); (2) a modified penalty scheme for
either or both quasi-offenses (paragraphs 3-4, 6 and 9);
Complex crimes in relation to Quasi-crimes
(3) a generic rule for trial courts in imposing penalties
(paragraph 5); and (4) the definition of "reckless
1. . Ivler vs. San Pedro
imprudence" and "simple imprudence" (paragraphs 7-8).
Conceptually, quasi-offenses penalize "the mental
Facts: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004,
attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71
punible,"16 unlike willful offenses which punish the
(MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless
intentional criminal act. These structural and conceptual
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
features of quasi-offenses set them apart from the mass
(Criminal Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by
of intentional crimes under the first 13 Titles of Book II of
respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce);
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless
death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce or simple, are distinct species of crime, separately
and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. Petitioner defined and penalized under the framework of our penal
posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. laws, is nothing new.

On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the The proposition (inferred from Art. 3 of the Revised
charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out Penal Code) that "reckless imprudence" is not a crime in
the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, itself but simply a way of committing it and merely
petitioner moved to quash the Information in Criminal determines a lower degree of criminal liability is too
Case No. 82366 for placing him in jeopardy of second broad to deserve unqualified assent. There are crimes
punishment for the same offense of reckless that by their structure cannot be committed through
imprudence. imprudence: murder, treason, robbery, malicious
The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of mischief, etc. In truth, criminal negligence in our Revised
offenses in the two cases. Penal Code is treated as a mere quasi offense, and dealt
with separately from willful offenses. It is not a mere
question of classification or terminology. In intentional
229
 AB
crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or The rapes were alleged to have been committed in
imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental several instances over a span of six (6) years.
attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia AAA testified that she was only six (6) years old when
punible. she was first molested in 1994 in the house appellant
(Alfredo Bon) had shared with her grandmother. She
II. Jurisprudence adopts both approaches. recounted that the incident took place when she and
appellant were alone in the house. Appellant touched her
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single thighs and vagina, removed her clothes and inserted his
prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two penis into her vagina. Appellant threatened that she and
categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more her parents would be killed should she disclose the
grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from its incident to anyone. She thereafter stopped sleeping in
operation light felonies46); and (2) when an offense is a the house of her grandmother. It was only three (3) years
necessary means for committing the other. The after, in 1997, that she slept in the said house, yet again
legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the she was sexually abused by appellant. She was then
accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will nine (9) years old.
only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most
serious crime. AAA recounted that at age eleven (11) in 1999, she was
raped by appellant for the third time, again at the house
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule of her grandmother. The following year, when she was
penalizing not an act defined as a felony but "the twelve (12), she was abused for the fourth time by
mental attitude x x x behind the act, the dangerous appellant. This time, she was raped in an outdoor
recklessness, lack of care or foresight x x x,"47 a single clearing after having been invited there by appellant to
mental attitude regardless of the resulting get some vegetables. While at the clearing, appellant
consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one forced her to lie down on a grassy spot and tried to insert
quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences. his penis in her vagina. As she cried in pain, appellant
Thus, one line of rulings (none of which involved the allegedly stopped.
issue of double jeopardy) applied Article 48 by It was only on 12 June 2000 that she decided to reveal
"complexing" one quasi-crime with its multiple to her mother, CCC, the brutish acts appellant had done
consequences unless one consequence amounts to a to her. Her mother thus filed a complaint against her
light felony, in which case charges were split by uncle. AAA identified appellant in open court and
grouping, on the one hand, resulting acts amounting to presented as documentary evidence her birth certificate
grave or less grave felonies and filing the charge with the to prove that she was born on 3 September 1988.
second level courts and, on the other hand, resulting
acts amounting to light felonies and filing the charge with BBB, on the other hand, testified that she was first raped
the first level courts. Expectedly, this is the approach the by appellant in 1997 when she was ten (10) years old,
MeTC impliedly sanctioned (and respondent Ponce also at the house appellant shared with her
invokes), even though under Republic Act No. 7691,50 grandmother. While alone in the house, appellant poked
the MeTC has now exclusive original jurisdiction to a knife at her, removed her clothes and inserted his
impose the most serious penalty under Article 365 which penis in her vagina. Despite the pain she felt, she could
is prision correccional in its medium period. not resist appellant as he was holding a knife. She did
not report the rape to her parents out of fear of
Under this approach, the issue of double jeopardy will appellant's threat that he would kill her. BBB further
not arise if the "complexing" of acts penalized under testified that in 1998 and 1999, she was raped again by
Article 365 involves only resulting acts penalized as appellant on several occasions, the rapes occurring
grave or less grave felonies because there will be a under threat of a bladed weapon, and regardless of the
single prosecution of all the resulting acts. The issue time of day.
of double jeopardy arises if one of the resulting acts
is penalized as a light offense and the other acts are BBB stated that she was last raped by appellant on 15
penalized as grave or less grave offenses, in which January 2000. On that night, she was sleeping beside
case Article 48 is not deemed to apply and the act her sister AAA in the house of her grandmother when
penalized as a light offense is tried separately from she felt appellant touching her body. She pushed him
the resulting acts penalized as grave or less grave away but appellant pulled her three (3) meters away
offenses. from AAA towards the door. As appellant was holding a
knife, BBB could not make any noise to alert her sister.
The second jurisprudential path nixes Article 48 and Appellant ordered her to remove her clothes and forced
sanctions a single prosecution of all the effects of the her to lie down. After he took off his clothes, appellant
quasi-crime collectively alleged in one charge, placed himself on top of BBB and stayed there for three
regardless of their number or severity, penalizing each (3) minutes "moving up and down." Thereafter, she put
consequence separately on her clothes and returned to where her sister was. She
added that although it was dark, she knew it was
PENALTIES appellant who had molested her as she was familiar with
his smell. Since then, she never slept in her
Execution and Service of Penalties grandmother's house again.

1. People vs. Bon Only appellant testified for his defense, offering denial
and alibi as his defense. He averred in court that from
Facts: Eight (8) Informations were filed within the 1994 to 2000, he lived in the house of his parents which
period from 21 August 2000 to 23 February 2001 by was about "thirty (30) arm stretches" away from the
the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Gumaca, house of BBB and AAA. He denied having raped BBB on
Quezon against appellant, charging him with the 15 January 2000 because on said date he was at the
rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters of his older house of his sister, two (2) kilometers away from the
brother. house of his parents where the rape occurred, from
11:30 in the morning and stayed there until early
morning of the following day.

230
 AB
He offered a general denial of the other charges against same standard would prevail in sentencing principals
him by BBB and AAA. He claimed that he seldom saw and accomplices to the crime of kidnapping in ransom,
the two minors. He further asserted that prior to the as that prescribed to the crime of simple kidnapping.
institution of the criminal case against him he had a
smooth relationship with his nieces and the only reason There are principles in statutory construction that will
the case was filed against him was that CCC, his sister- sanction, even mandate, this "expansive" interpretation
in-law and the mother of his nieces, harbored ill-feelings of Rep. Act No. 9346. The maxim interpretare et
towards his deceased father, who would call CCC "lazy" concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi embodies
within earshot of other family members. the principle that a statute should be so construed not
only to be consistent with itself, but also to harmonize
The RTC convicted appellant on all eight (8) counts with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a
of rape. The RTC pronounced appellant's defense of complete, coherent and intelligible system—a uniform
denial and alibi as unconvincing, citing jurisprudence system of jurisprudence.75 "Interpreting and
declaring denial and alibi as intrinsically weak defenses. harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of
The RTC concluded that appellant failed to controvert interpretation. x x x x This manner of construction would
the clear, candid and straightforward testimonies of his provide a complete, consistent and intelligible system to
nieces. It further considered the qualifying secure the rights of all persons affected by different
circumstances of minority of the victims and the legislative and quasi-legislative acts." There can be no
relationship of the victims and appellant, the latter harmony between Rep. Act No. 9346 and the Revised
being the former's relative by consanguinity within Penal Code unless the later statute is construed as
the third degree. having downgraded those penalties attached to
death by reason of the graduated scale under Article
On 29 December 2004, the Court of Appeals agreed 71. Only in that manner will a clear and consistent rule
with the rulings of the RTC in regard to six (6) of the emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated
eight (8) death sentences imposed on appellant. and attempted felonies, and for accessories and
accomplices.
The Court of Appeals downgraded the convictions in
Criminal Case Nos. 6906 and 6908 to attempted rape. In It is also a well-known rule of legal hermeneutics
these two (2) cases, it was alleged that appellant had that penal or criminal laws are strictly construed
raped AAA in 1999 and on 11 June 2000, respectively. against the state and liberally in favor of the
According to the appellate court, it could not find accused. If the language of the law were ambiguous,
evidence beyond reasonable doubt in those two (2) the court will lean more strongly in favor of the defendant
cases that appellant had accomplished the slightest than it would if the statute were remedial, as a means of
penetration of AAA's vagina to make him liable for effecting substantial justice. The law is tender in favor of
consummated rape. It stressed that there was not even the rights of an individual.
moral certainty that appellant's penis ever touched the
labia of the pudendum, quoting portions of the transcript
 Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code establishes the
of the stenographic notes where AAA was asked if
penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an
appellant was then successful in inserting his penis into
attempted felony:
her vagina and she answered in the negative.
ART. 51. xxx — A penalty lower by two degrees than
Issue:
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
I. What should be the appropriate penalty for the
shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to
two (2) counts of attempted rape proves to be
commit a felony.54
the more challenging but interesting question
facing the Court.
What is the penalty "lower by two degrees than that
II. Whether Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to delete
prescribed by law" for attempted rape? Article 266-B of
the word "death" as expressly provided for in the
the Revised Penal Code, which incorporates the
graduated scale of penalties under Article 71.
amendments introduced by Rep. Act No. 8353,
III. Rep. Act No. 7659, in the course of reintroducing
prescribes:
the death penalty in the Philippines, also
effectively classified the crimes listed therein as
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime
"heinous," within constitutional contemplation.
of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances: xxx
Ruling:
Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the
I. Simply put, the negation of the word "death"
law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more
as previously inscribed in Article 71 will have
degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed
the effect of appropriately downgrading the
in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
proper penalties attaching to accomplices,
penalty.
accessories, frustrated and attempted
felonies to the level consistent with the rest
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
of our penal laws.
graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty:
Returning to our previous examples, Y, the convicted
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty,
accomplice in kidnapping for ransom, would now bear
shall observe the following graduated scales:
the penalty of reclusion temporal, the penalty one degree
SCALE NO. 1
lower than that the principal X would bear (reclusion
perpetua). Such sentence would be consistent with
1. Death
Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as Article
71, as amended, to remove the reference to "death."
2. Reclusion perpetua
Moreover, the prospect of the accomplice receiving the
same sentence as the principal, an anomalous notion
3. Reclusion temporal
within our penal laws, would be eliminated. Thus, the

231
 AB
4. Prision mayor True, the penalties for heinous crimes have been
downgraded under the aegis of the new law. Still, what
5. Prision correctional remains extant is the recognition by law that such
crimes, by their abhorrent nature, constitute a special
6. Arresto mayor category by themselves. Accordingly, Rep. Act No. 9346
does not serve as basis for the reduction of civil
7. Destierro indemnity and other damages that adhere to heinous
crimes.
8. Arresto menor
Penalty: Under Article 61 (2) of the Revised Penal Code,
9. Public censure "[w]hen the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed
of two indivisible penalties x x x x the penalty next lower
10. Fine57 in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser
of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated
xxxx scale." Hence, as we earlier noted, our previous rulings
that the penalty two degrees lower than "reclusion
Following the scale prescribed in Article 71, the perpetua to death" is prision mayor.
penalty two degrees lower than death is reclusion We close by returning to the matter of appellant Alfredo
temporal, which was the maximum penalty imposed Bon. By reason of Rep. Act No. 9346, he is spared
by the Court of Appeals on appellant for attempted the death sentence, and entitled to the
rape. Reclusion temporal is a penalty comprised of three corresponding reduction of his penalty as a
divisible periods, a minimum, a medium and a maximum. consequence of the downgrading of his offense from
two (2) counts consummated rape to two (2) counts
At the same time, the Indeterminate Sentence Law of attempted rape. For the six (6) counts of rape, we
prescribes that "the court shall sentence the accused to downgrade the penalty of death to reclusion
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which perpetua with no eligibility for parole, pursuant to
shall be that which, in view of the attending Rep. Act No. 9346. For each of the two (2) counts of
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the attempted rape, we downgrade by one degree lower
rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. We
within the range of the penalty next lower to that hold that there being no mitigating or aggravating
prescribed by the Code for the offense." circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor should be
imposed in it medium period. Consequently, we impose
II. Muñoz did not engage in an analogous inquiry in the new penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and
relation to Article 71 and the Constitution, for one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
what was relevant therein was not the general (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
graduated scale of penalties, but the range of
the penalties for murder. Lastly, as to damages, the Court awards AAA
P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral
Herein, at bare minimum, no provision in Rep. Act No. damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages for
9346 provides a context within which the concept of each count of attempted rape, it being the prevailing rate
"death penalty" bears retentive legal effect, especially in of indemnity as pronounced in the recent case of People
relation to Article 71. Unlike the Constitution, Rep. Act v. Miranda.89
No. 9346 does expressly stipulate the amendment of all
extant laws insofar as they called for the imposition of Separately, the Court applies prevailing jurisprudence90
the penalty of death. in awarding to BBB and AAA P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and
We cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act No. 9346 P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of
intended to retain the operative effects of the death consummated rape.
penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our
penal laws. Munoz cannot enjoin us to adopt such Other Notes:
conclusion. Rep. Act No. 9346 is not swaddled in the
same restraints appreciated by Muñoz on Section 19(1),  Basically, ang pinaka-issue talaga sa case na to is
since repealed na yung law that imposes death
Article III. The very Congress empowered by the
penalty, magsisimula ba magbilang for graduation of
Constitution to reinstate the imposition of the death
penalties sa “death” or sa now imposable penalty
penalty once thought it best to do so, through Rep. Act
which is “reclusion perpetua”?
No. 7650. Within the same realm of constitutional
 The SC says sa reclusion perpetua magsisimula
discretion, Congress has reversed itself. It must be
magbilang kasi yun ang favorable sa accused.
asserted that today, the legal status of the suppression o The prospect of the accomplice receiving the
of the death penalty in the Philippines has never been
same sentence as the principal, an anomalous
more secure than at any time in our political history as a notion within our penal laws, would be eliminated.
nation. o The maxim interpretare et concordare legibus est
Following Muñoz, the sovereign people, through the optimus interpretandi embodies the principle that
1987 Constitution, might not have willed the abolition of a statute should be so construed not only to be
consistent with itself, but also to harmonize with
the death penalty and instead placed it under a
other laws on the same subject matter, as to form
suspensive condition.
a complete, coherent and intelligible system—a
III. It should be understood that the debarring of the uniform system of jurisprudence."Interpreting and
death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 did not harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of
correspondingly declassify those crimes interpretation. x x x x This manner of construction
would provide a complete, consistent and
previously catalogued as "heinous.”
intelligible system to secure the rights of all
The amendatory effects of Rep. Act No. 9346 extend persons affected by different legislative and quasi-
only to the application of the death penalty but not to the legislative acts."
definition or classification of crimes.
2. People vs. Lucas (May 25, 1994)
232
 AB
her aunt but the former did nothing. When her aunt said
Facts: In a sworn statement 1 taken on 16 February that her father should be jailed, her mother did not agree.
1991, Chanda Lucas y Austria, then seventeen years 6
old, charged her natural father, accused Jose
Conrado Lucas, of attempted rape committed The 26 November 1983 incident was only the first of
against her on 12 February 1991. She revealed therein many atrocities. Since then, her father had been
that she was first raped by him when she was only nine repeatedly molesting her, especially when her mother
years old, or, as disclosed in a handwritten note at the was not around. The last assault on her womanhood
left-hand margin of her sworn statement, "noong Nov. occurred on 12 February 1991 when she was already
26, 1982 . . . at naulit ng maraming beses." seventeen years old. Before he had sex with her at 3:00
a.m. on 12 February 1991, he first moved her brothers
On 19 February 1991, Chanda, assisted by her and sisters, who were sleeping in the same room with
mother, Ofelia Austria-Lucas, filed two separate her, to another place. She did not resist because he had
sworn criminal complaints for rape and for a balisong with him and told her that he can take her life
attempted rape against her father with the RTC of anytime. After the sexual assault, he stood up holding
Quezon City. The complaints, docketed as Criminal his balisong and again said that she has only one life
Cases Nos. Q-91-18465 and Q-91-18466, were and that he can take it anytime.
subsequently assigned to Branch 104 of the said court.
 Anent the second assigned error, he contends that
The accusatory portion of the complaint for rape in he could not be validly convicted of rape in Criminal
Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 reads: Case No. Q-91-18466 under a complaint for
attempted rape only. He cites the rule that when the
That on or about the 26th day of November 1982 and offense proved is more serious than that charged, the
sometime thereafter in Quezon City, Philippines and accused can only be convicted of the offense charged.
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with lewd designs and by means of Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting
violence and intimidation did then and there, wilfully, the accused of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. Q-
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with 91-18466 inasmuch as the same is more serious than
the undersigned CHANDA LUCAS Y AUSTRIA, who the offense charged (attempted rape).
was then nine (9) years old, now 17 yrs. of age, against Ruling: Considering, however, that the complaint for this
her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as incident subject of Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466
may be awarded to her under the provisions of the New charges the accused with the crime of attempted rape,
Civil Code. then, as correctly pointed out by the accused in his
second assigned error and concurred in by the Office of
while that for attempted rape in Criminal Case No. Q-91- the Solicitor General, he cannot be convicted of
18466 reads: consummated rape.

That on or about the 12th day of February 1991, in Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides
Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of that "when there is variance between the offense
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did charged in the complaint or information, and that
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with proved or established by the evidence, and the
lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, offense as charged is included in or necessarily
commence the commission of the crime of rape includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
directly by overt acts by then and there taking convicted of the offense proved included in that
advantage of complainant's tender age and which is charged, or of the offense charged included
innocence, by then and there putting his hand inside in that which is proved."
the panty of the undersigned and mashing her
vagina while his other hand was pressing her The offense charged in Criminal Case No. Q-91-
nipples and at the same time kissing her on the lips, 18466 (attempted rape) is necessarily included in the
face and neck, thereafter accused placed himself on offense that was proved (consummated rape).
top of her but said accused did not perform all the Accordingly, the accused should be convicted of
acts of execution which should produce the said attempted rape only.
offense of rape by reason of the fact that the brother
and sister of the undersigned was awakened and Penalty: The penalty for attempted rape is prision
shouted upon the accused, a cause other than the mayor, which is two degrees lower than that provided by
spontaneous desistance of the said accused, that law for rape. The accused is entitled to the benefits of
the aforesaid act of the said accused was done the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and for attempted rape
against the will of the undersigned, to her damage he may be sentenced to a penalty whose minimum
and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to should be within the range of prision correccional and
her under the provisions of the New Civil Code. whose maximum should be within the range range of
prision mayor, taking into account the modifying
Complainant Chanda Lucas, who was born on 2 June circumstances. The alternative circumstance of
1973, 5 testified that their house at 23-X Daropa Road, relationship provided for in Article 15 of the Revised
Baesa, Quezon City, has only one bedroom. On 26 Penal Code should be appreciated against the accused
November 1983, she was sleeping in the bedroom with considering that the offended party, Chanda, is his
her brother and sisters. Their mother did not sleep in descendant. In crimes against chastity, such as rape,
their house at that time. At about 2:00 to 3:00 a.m., she relationship is aggravating.
awoke and realized that her father was removing her
panty and shorts. He cautioned her to keep quiet. Then, Prior to R.A. No. 7659, 36 the presence of modifying
her father, who was already naked, went on top of her circumstances would not affect the penalty of reclusion
and placed his sexual organ inside her vagina. She was perpetua prescribed for the crime of rape because such
hurt but did not resist because her father threatened to a penalty was then indivisible and under Article 63 of the
kill her. Only her older sister Cynthia witnessed the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a single
incident. Chanda reported the incident to her mother and indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts

233
 AB
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission minimum
of the deed. However, pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. —
7659, which amended Article 27 of the Revised Penal
Code, reclusion perpetua has now a defined duration, 20 years and 1 day to 26 years and 8 months
i.e., from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40)
years. There is, however, no corresponding amendment medium
to Article 76 of the same Code for the purpose of
converting reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty with —
three specific periods — minimum, medium, and
maximum — and including it in the table provided therein 26 years, 8 months and 1 day to 33 years and 4 months
showing the duration and the time included in each of
the periods. maximum

It may thus be said that although the law has now fixed
—
the duration of reclusion perpetua, it did not make
explicit its intention to convert it into a divisible penalty.
In any event, Article 65 of the Code which provides: 34 years, 4 months and 1 day to 40 years

Art. 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty is not Taking into account the presence of the aggravating
composed of three periods. — In cases in which the circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. Q-91-
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three 18465, the accused may finally be sentenced to thirty-
periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the four (34) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of reclusion perpetua.
time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one
period of each of the three portions. It then modified the challenged decision of the trial court
by changing the penalty in Criminal Case No. Q-91-
may be applied. Accordingly, the time included in the 18465 from reclusion perpetua, as imposed by the trial
penalty of reclusion perpetua (twenty [20] years and one court, to "imprisonment of 34 years, 4 months and 1 day
[1] days to forty [40] years) can be divided into three of reclusion perpetua."
equal portions, with each composing a period. The
periods of reclusion perpetua would then be as follows: In a motion for clarification seasonably filed by the
appellee on 28 June 1994 which was not opposed by the
minimum — 20 years and 1 day to 26 years and 8 accused-appellant in his comment, the appellee asks the
months Court to correct the duration of the maximum period of
reclusion perpetua from thirty-four (34) years, four (4)
medium — 26 years, 8 months and 1 day to 33 years months and one (1) day to forty (40) years, as stated in
and 4 months the decision, to thirty-three (33) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day to forty (40) years.
maximum — 34 years, 4 months and 1 day to 40 years
Issue: Whether the amendment of Article 27 of the
Taking into account the presence of the aggravating Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has
circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. Q-91- made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty.
18465, the accused may finally be sentenced to thirty-
four (34) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of Ruling: The Court concludes that although Section 17 of
reclusion perpetua. R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion
perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty
Considering again such aggravating circumstance, the (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its
accused may be sentenced in Criminal Case No. Q-91- original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall
18466 to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) then remain as an indivisible penalty.
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and It will be observed that Article 27 of the Code provides
one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as maximum. for the minimum and maximum ranges of all the
penalties in the Code (except bond to keep the peace
3. People vs. Lucas (January 9, 1995) which shall be for such period of time as the court may
determine) from arresto menor to reclusion temporal, the
Facts: In the decision in this case, promulgated on 25 latter being specifically from twelve years and one day to
May 1994, the First Division touched on the nature of the twenty years. For reclusion perpetua, however, there is
penalty of reclusion perpetua in the light of Section 21 of no specification as to its minimum and maximum range,
R.A. No. 76591 which amended Article 27 of the Revised as the aforesaid article merely provides that "(a)ny
Penal Code by specifically fixing the duration of reclusion person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall
perpetua at twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years,
(40) years. It opined that since no corresponding unless such person by reason of his conduct or some
amendment to Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code was other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief
made, the said laws has not made explicit an intention to Executive as unworthy of pardon."
convert reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty.
Nevertheless, it applied Article 65 of the Revised Penal The other applicable reference to reclusion perpetua is
Code and stated: found in Article 70 of the Code which, in laying down the
rule on successive service of sentences where the culprit
Accordingly, the time included in the penalty of reclusion has to serve more than three penalties, provides that
perpetua (twenty [20] years and one [1] day to forty [40] "the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
years) can be divided into three equal portions with each not be more than three-fold the length of time
composing a period. The periods of reclusion perpetua corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
would then be as follows: imposed upon him," and "(i)n applying the provisions of

234
 AB
this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena On April 29, 1991, at around 4:00 in the afternoon,
perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years." Ceferino Dagulo (hereafter Ceferino) was chopping
firewood outside his house in Angang, Tuao, Cagayan.
The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion Suddenly, he heard the shouts of a woman and a child
perpetua, therefore, is only to serve as the basis for coming from the north.
determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the
application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple Moments later, Ceferino saw accused Gerardo Latupan
penalties. Since, however, in all the graduated scales of y Sibal walking in his direction, carrying a thin, bloodied
penalties in the Code, as set out in Article 25, 70 and 71, knife. Accused Latupan entered the house of Ceferino
reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher and started chasing Ceferino's wife, who was able to run
to reclusion temporal, it follows by necessary implication to another house nearby. Unable to catch Ceferino's
that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) wife, accused Latupan turned to Ceferino and said, "I will
years and one (1) day with duration thereafter to last for kill you all." At that time, accused Latupan's clothes,
the rest of the convict's natural life although, pursuant to chest, hands and legs were full of blood. Accused
Article 70, it appears that the maximum period for the Latupan attempted to thrust the knife into Ceferino, who
service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. It was able to parry it. Later on, accused Latupan told
would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of Ceferino to bring him to the authorities and tried to give
penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of reclusion the knife to Ceferino. Ceferino refused to touch the knife
perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby and told accused to go to the authorities by himself.
be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the Hearing this advice, accused ran away.
maximum twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal but is
less than thirty (30) years. The house of Emilio Asuncion (hereafter Emy) was 100
meters from Ceferino's house. At around 4:00 in the
Penalty: WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to MODIFY afternoon of the same day, Emy Asuncion was returning
the decision of 25 May 1994 in this case by DELETING to his house from a store. He reached his house and
therefrom the disquisitions on whether reclusion found his wife, Lilia, dead on the ground with several
perpetua is a divisible penalty and SETTING ASIDE its stab wounds on her body. His one-year old son, Leo,
division into three periods and, finally, AMENDING the was lying on top of Lilia Asuncion. Emy picked up Leo
dispositive portion thereof to read as follows: and saw that the left side of Leo's face was lacerated.
He saw Jaime, his three-year old son and asked where
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of 28 October Jose, his eldest son, was. At that moment, Emy heard
1992 of Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City in the voice of Jose from upstairs of the house, asking for
Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 and Criminal Case No. medicine. He ran upstairs and saw that Jose was
Q-91-18466 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject ot the wounded. He asked Jose who stabbed him. Jose
modifications above indicated. As modified: replied, "Uncle Jerry, Tatang." Seeing that Jose needed
immediate medical treatment, Emy brought him to the
(1) In Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465, in addition to the house of Ceferino and then returned to his house to get
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court, his two other children, Leo and Jaime. They left the
accused JOSE CONRADO LUCAS Y BRIONES is corpse of Lilia Asuncion inside Emy's house.
further ordered to indemnify the offended party, Chanda
Lucas y Austria, in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos Lilia Asuncion was the sister of Ceferino's wife.
(P5,000.00); and
Meanwhile, Ceferino tried to ask a barangay councilman
(2) In Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466, accused JOSE for assistance. Failing to obtain assistance, Ceferino
CONRADO LUCAS Y BRIONES is hereby found went back to his house and found Emy Asuncion and his
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offense children there. Then, Ceferino went to a military camp to
of attempted rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer an borrow a vehicle to bring the children to the hospital. The
indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) Years, Two military men provided them with a jeep. Thus, the three
(2) Months and One (1) Day of prision correccional as children were taken to the Nuestra Señora de Piat
minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision Hospital in Cabalansan. Riding in the jeep were five
mayor maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, soldiers, the accused Latupan, Emy Asuncion, Ceferino
Chanda Lucas y Austria, in the sum of Thirty Thousand Dagulo, Ceferino's wife, and the three children, Leo,
Pesos (P30,000.00). Jaime and Jose Asuncion.

4. People vs. Latupan During the trip to the hospital, Emy's son, Jose, saw
accused Latupan inside the jeep. Jose pointed to
Facts: The case is an appeal from the decision1 of the accused Latupan as the one who stabbed him.
RTC, Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11 convicting Gerardo
Latupan y Sibal, alias Jerry of the complex crime of At the hospital, the doctors treated the injuries of Leo
double murder and sentencing him to "life imprisonment" and Jaime. However, the doctors advised Emy and
and to indemnify the heirs of the two victims in the Ceferino to bring Jose to another hospital due to the
amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos each. The seriousness of his wounds. So, they proceeded to
court also convicted accused Gerardo Latupan of Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital. Sadly, Jose was
inflicting physical injuries to Jaime Asuncion, and dead on arrival.8 He was only nine years old.
sentenced him to "ten days imprisonment" and to pay
two hundred (P200.00) pesos as indemnity. On August 25, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
On April 13, 1992, Provincial Prosecutor Alejandro A.
Pulido of Cagayan filed with the RTC, Tuao, Cagayan "WHEREFORE, finding the accused GERARDO
four separate informations charging Gerardo Latupan y LATUPAN alias JERRY GUILTY beyond reasonable
Sibal alias Jerry with two counts of frustrated murder and doubt of the complex offense of Double Murder, the
two counts of murder. Court hereby sentences him to suffer life imprisonment
and to indemnify the heirs of the two victims in the
amount of P50,000.00 each or a total of P100,000.00.
235
 AB
appropriate name of the penalty must be specified
"For the physical injuries suffered by Jaime Asuncion, inasmuch as under the scheme of penalties in the
the accused is sentenced to suffer ten (10) days Revised Penal Code, the principal penalty for a felony
imprisonment. Likewise, for the physical injuries suffered has its own specific duration and corresponding
by Leon Asuncion, the accused is also sentenced to accessory penalties. Thus, the courts must employ the
suffer ten (10) days imprisonment, both to be suffered proper nomenclature specified in the Revised Penal
simultaneously with the more grievous sentence of life Code, such as "reclusion perpetua," not "life
imprisonment, plus P200.00 indemnity to each of the two imprisonment" or "ten days of arresto menor," not "ten
victims. days of imprisonment."

SO ORDERED.” Penalty: Hence, the proper penalty for each murder

committed in April 1991, considering the absence of
Issue: aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is reclusion
Ruling: perpetua, with its accessory penalties. Further, accused-
appellant is liable for two counts of slight physical injuries
I. The trial court, however, erred in convicting and must be sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto
accused-appellant of the "complex crime of menor, each, likewise with its accessory penalties under
double murder" and separate offenses of the Revised Penal Code.
serious physical injuries. 5. People vs. Lanuza
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave Facts: On appeal is the Decision dated April 27, 2009 of
felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 31406, which
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious affirmed the Judgment2 dated January 30, 2008 of
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its Branch 14 of the RTC (RTC) of Laoag City in Criminal
maximum period." Case No. 13388-14, finding accused-appellant Rodel
Bagaoisan Lanuza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
The instant case does not fall under any of the two crime of frustrated homicide. The RTC, taking into
mentioned instances when a complex crime is consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
committed.13 The killing of Lilia Asuncion and Jose surrender and applying the indeterminate sentence law,
Asuncion and the wounding of Jaime and Leo Asuncion sentenced accused-appellant to imprisonment from four
resulted not from a single act but from several and (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven
distinct acts of stabbing. "Where the death of two (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
persons does not result from a single act but from two
different shots, two separate murders, and not a complex Version of the Defense
crime, are committed."
the incident subject of this case took place at the
Thus, accused-appellant is liable, not for a complex basement of the BIR office in Laoag City in the morning
crime of double murder, but for two separate counts of of April 1, 2007, while the private complainant as
murder, and separate counts of physical injuries. outgoing security guard was handing his shotgun to the
II. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, accused, the incoming security guard. Because the
the penalty for murder at the time of the accused did not report for duty on the scheduled time,
commission of the crime in April 1991 was the private complainant reprimanded him. After the
reclusion temporal maximum to death. The accused had affixed his signature on the pertinent
trial court convicted accused-appellant of portion of the logbook enumerating the items turned-over
murder and sentenced him to "life to him by the outgoing security guard, the private
imprisonment." The proper imposable complainant handed to him their service firearm, a
penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life shotgun. Allegedly, the private complainant held it with
imprisonment. Obviously, the trial court both hands, with the muzzle pointed at him and the butt
intended to impose reclusion perpetua. towards the accused. At that moment, the accused
gripped the firearm with one hand, with his pointer finger
The penalty of life imprisonment is not the same as inside the trigger guard and on top of the trigger itself. In
reclusion perpetua. They are distinct in nature, in his affidavit which was adopted as part of his direct
duration and in accessory penalties. testimony, the accused stated that "I immediately held
opposite the muzzle of the gun where the trigger is, I
First, "life imprisonment" is imposed for serious offenses
almost slip with it while in the act of gripping and then
penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is
immediately the gun went off; the incident happened so
prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. Second, "life
fast that I was stunned then realized that I accidentally
imprisonment" does not carry with it any accessory
shot my fellow guard." The private complainant was hit
penalty. Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties.
on the left side of his waist. With the private complainant
Third, "life imprisonment" does not appear to have any
bleeding and unconscious, the accused went to the
definite extent or duration, while reclusion perpetua
telephone upstairs to call for an ambulance. There,
entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after
however, the accused heard the sound of a motorcycle
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although
leaving the BIR premises. He went down and discovered
the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed
that the private complainant was no longer at the place
forty (40) years.
where he had left him. The accused, thereafter,
III. We likewise note that the trial court proceeded to the Laoag City police station and
sentenced accused to "ten days of surrendered.
imprisonment" for each count of slight
physical injuries. Version of the Prosecution

We reiterate the rule that it is necessary for the courts to According to the private complainant, he did not actually
employ the proper legal terminology in the imposition of hand the shotgun to the accused. Instead, he merely
penalties because of the substantial difference in their placed it, together with one bullet, on top of the security
corresponding legal effects and accessory penalties. The guard’s table. Although he was turning over six bullets to
236
 AB
the accused, the private complainant asserted that the the hospital. On June 6, 1995, Jose executed a Sworn
five others were inside a drawer on the security guard’s Statement at the Biñan Police Station.
table at their office upstairs. While the private
complainant who was about to go home was asking why Issue:
the accused did not report on his scheduled shift, the
latter got the shotgun, placed the ammunition inside it, Ruling: The Court finds the indeterminate sentence of
and shot him. The private complainant fell down on his 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
buttocks. The accused went near the private 14 years and eight months, as maximum, legally
complainant and pulled the trigger a second time, but the erroneous.
shotgun did not fire and the private complainant heard The penalty for homicide under Article 246 of the
only a click. The accused ran upstairs, and the private Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Under
complainant crawled to his motorcycle and drove it Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court,
himself to the provincial hospital. in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished
by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, is
Issue: mandated to prescribe an indeterminate sentence the
Ruling: Finally, the Court likewise sustains the penalty maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of
and damages imposed against accused-appellant. the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the
The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of frustrated minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty
homicide is one degree lower than that prescribed by law next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
for the crime of homicide.25 Under the indeterminate for the offense. With the absence of aggravating or
sentence law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that mitigating circumstances, the imposable penalty is
which could be properly imposed in view of the attending reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years,
circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the eight months, and one day to 17 years and four months.
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the This is pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal
Revised Penal Code. Code.16 It is such period that the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence should be reckoned from.
Considering that the penalty prescribed by law for the Hence, limiting the maximum term of the indeterminate
crime of homicide is reclusion temporal, the penalty for sentence at only 14 years and eight months contravened
the crime of frustrated homicide would be prision mayor. the express provision of the Indeterminate Sentence
Applying the indeterminate sentence law, there being the Law, for such penalty was within the minimum period of
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no reclusion temporal. Accordingly, the Court must add one
aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the sentence day to the maximum term fixed by the lower courts.
should be within the range of prision mayor in its
minimum term which has a duration of six (6) years and The Court finds to be unnecessary the increment of one
one (1) day to eight (8) years, and that, on the other day as part of the minimum term of the indeterminate
hand, the minimum should be within the range of prision sentence. It may be true that the increment did not
correccional which has a duration of six (6) months and constitute an error, because the minimum term thus fixed
one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the imposition of was entirely within the parameters of the Indeterminate
imprisonment from four (4) years of prision correccional, Sentence Law. Yet, the addition of one day to the 10
as minimum, to seven (7) years of prision mayor, as years as the minimum term of the indeterminate
maximum, is in order. sentence of Talampas may occasion a degree of
inconvenience when it will be time for the penal
6. Talampas vs. People administrators concerned to consider and determine
whether Talampas is already qualified to enjoy the
Facts: By petition for review on certiorari, Virgilio benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Hence, in
Talampas y Matic (Talampas) seeks the review of the order to simplify the computation of the minimum penalty
affirmance of his conviction for homicide (for the killing of of the indeterminate sentence, the Court deletes the
the late Ernesto Matic y Masinloc) by the Court of one-day increment from the minimum term of the
Appeals (CA) through its decision promulgated on indeterminate sentence.
August 16, 2007.

The RTC, Branch 25, in Biñan, Laguna (RTC) had 7. People vs. Temporada
rejected his pleas of self-defense and accident and had
declared him guilty of the felony under the judgment Facts: From September 2001 to January 2002, accused
rendered on June 22, 2004. Rosemarie "Baby" Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita
Catacotan and Jojo Resco and appellant Beth
Prosecution witness Jose Sevillo (Jose) who allegedly Temporada, all employees of the Alternative Travel and
witnessed the incident in question, testified that on July Tours Corporation (ATTC), recruited and promised
5, 1995 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, he together overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio
with Eduardo Matic (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic Legaspi, Jr. as technician in Singapore, and Soledad
(Ernesto) were infront of his house, along the road in Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano
Zona Siete (7), Wawa, Malaban, Biñan, Laguna, as factory workers in Hongkong. The accused and
repairing his tricycle when he noticed the appellant who appellant were then holding office at Dela Rosa Street,
was riding on a bicycle passed by and stopped. The Makati City but eventually transferred business to
latter alighted at about three (3) meters away from him, Discovery Plaza, Ermita, Manila. After complainants had
walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a submitted all the requirements consisting of their
revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it respective application forms, passports, NBI clearances
hitting Eduardo who took refuge behind Ernesto. The and medical certificates, the accused and appellant, on
appellant again fired his gun three (3) times, one shot different dates, collected and received from them
hitting Ernesto at the right portion of his back causing placement fees in various amounts, viz.: a) from Rogelio
him (Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face down. Legaspi, Jr. — 57,600.00; b) from Dennis Dimaano —
Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell down on P66,520.00; c) from Evelyn Estacio — P88,520.00; d)
his back (patihaya). Thereafter, the appellant ran away, from Soledad Atle — P69,520.00 and e) from Luz
while he (Jose) and his neighbors brought the victims to Minkay — P69,520.00. As none of them was able to
237
 AB
leave nor recover the amounts they had paid, modifying circumstances. Besides, in case of doubt as to
complainant lodged separate criminal complaints against whether the incremental penalty rule falls within the
accused and appellant before the City Prosecutor of scope of "attending circumstances" under the ISL, the
Manila. doubt should be resolved in favor of inclusion because
this interpretation is more favorable to the accused
On November 29, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor following the time-honored principle that penal statutes
Restituto Mangalindan, Jr. filed six (6) Informations are construed strictly against the State and liberally in
against the accused and appellant, one for Illegal favor of the accused.
Recruitment in Large Scale under Article 38 (a) of the
Labor Code as amended, and the rest for five (5) counts Thus, even if the Dissenting Opinion's interpretation is
of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2 (a) of the gratuitously conceded as plausible, as between Gabres
Revised Penal Code. and the dissent's interpretation, Gabres should be
sustained since it is the interpretation more favorable to
The RTC rendered judgment convicting appellant of all the accused.
the charges. The CA affirmed with modification the
Decision of the RTC as follows: II. No.

WHEREFORE, with MODIFICATION to the effect that in The one-degree difference is merely the result of a
Criminal Cases Nos. 02-208373, 02-208375, & 02- general observation from the application of generic
208376, appellant is sentenced to suffer the mitigating and ordinary aggravating circumstances in the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision RPC in relation to the ISL. Nowhere does the ISL refer to
correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten (10) years the one-degree difference as an essential requisite of an
and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as "attending circumstance". If the application of the
maximum; and in Criminal Case No. 02-208374, she is incremental penalty rule deviates from the one-degree
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) difference, this only means that the law itself has
years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as provided for an exception thereto.
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum, the appealed Verily, the one-degree difference is a mere consequence
decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. of the generic mitigating and ordinary aggravating
circumstances created by the legislature. The difficulty of
Issue: the dissent with the deviation from its so-called one
degree difference rule seems to lie with the inability to
I. Whether the incremental rule penalty is analogous to view these "attending circumstances" as mere artifacts
a modifying circumstance falling under the “attending or creations of the legislature. It does not make sense to
circumstances” of the ISL. argue that the legislature cannot formulate "attending
circumstances" that operate differently than these
II. Whether the claim of the dissenting opinion of CJ generic mitigating and ordinary aggravating
Puno that maximum term should only be one degree circumstances, and that, expectedly, leads to a different
away from the minimum term is correct. result from the one-degree difference — for it would be
to say that the creator can only create one specie of
III. Whether the indeterminate penalty for the five estafa creatures. Further, it should be reasonably assumed that
cases modified by the CA is correct. the legislature was aware of these special
circumstances, like the incremental penalty rule or
Ruling: privileged mitigating circumstances, at the time it
enacted the ISL as well as the consequent effects of
I. Yes. such special circumstances on the application of said
law.
This unique characteristic of the incremental penalty rule
does not pose any obstacle to interpreting it as Thus, for as long as the incremental penalty rule is
analogous to a modifying circumstance, and, hence, consistent with the letter and spirit of "attending
falling within the letter and spirit of "attending circumstances" under the ISL, there is no obstacle to its
circumstances" for purposes of the application of the treatment as such.
ISL.
III. No.
Under the wording of the ISL, "attending circumstances"
may be reasonably interpreted as referring to such The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par.
circumstances that are applied in conjunction with 2 (d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds
certain rules in the Code in order to determine the P22,000.00, is prisión correccional maximum to prisión
penalty to be actually imposed based on the prescribed mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the
penalty of the Code for the offense. The incremental penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión
penalty rule substantially meets this standard. The correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months
circumstance is the amount defrauded in excess of and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Consequently, the
P22,000.00 and the incremental penalty rule is utilized to RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the five estafa
fix the penalty actually imposed. At its core, the cases at 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional
incremental penalty rule is merely a mathematical since this is within the range of prisión correccional
formula for computing the penalty to be actually imposed minimum and medium.
using the prescribed penalty as starting point.
To compute the maximum period of the prescribed
Thus, it serves the same function of determining the penalty, prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor
penalty actually imposed as the modifying circumstances minimum should be divided into three equal portions of
under Articles 13, 14, and 160 of the RPC, although the time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one
manner by which the former accomplishes this function period in accordance with Article 65 of the RPC.
differs with the latter. For this reason, the incremental Following this procedure, the maximum period of prisión
penalty rule may be considered as merely analogous to correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum is from
238
 AB
6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. The latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which
years, at the discretion of the court. may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other
MODIFIED with respect to the indeterminate penalties provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
imposed on appellant for the five (5) counts of estafa, to prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
wit: (emphasis suppied)

(1) In Criminal Case No. 02-208372, the accused is The problematic portion of Section 1 of the ISL in relation
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 to the above-quoted provision is the phrase “prescribed
months of prisión correccional as minimum, to 9 years, 8 by the Code,” which is essential in determining the range
months and 21 days of prisión mayor as maximum. within which the minimum of the indeterminate sentence
can be pegged. As can be observed from Article 315, the
(2) In Criminal Case Nos. 02-208373, 02-208375, and penalty prescribed for estafa in cases involving amounts
02-208376, the accused is sentenced to an exceeding P22,000 may be interpreted in two ways: first,
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prisión that the term “penalty prescribed” in Section 1 of the ISL
correccional as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 21 merely refers to the phrase “the penalty provided in this
days of prisión mayor as maximum for each of the paragraph,” which refers to “prision correccional in its
aforesaid three estafa cases. maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period,”
without as yet considering the addition of one year for
(3) In Criminal Case No. 02-208374, the accused is each additional P10,000 involved; or second, that the
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 “penalty prescribed” denotes the whole phrase “the
months of prisión correccional as minimum, to 12 years, penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
8 months and 21 days of reclusión temporal as maximum period, adding one year for each additional
maximum. 10,000 pesos.”

Separate Opinions: In essence, the existing jurisprudence[3] which the

ponencia staunchly defended and upheld, adheres to
I. CJ Puno, Dissenting Opinion the first interpretation. Under this view, since the “penalty
prescribed” by the RPC for estafa is prision correccional
The Court today basks magnanimous in its application of maximum to prision mayor minimum, the range of the
the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of penalty within which the minimum of the indeterminate
the accused. Although I acknowledge that the application sentence would be determined would be that degree
of this rule in the interpretation of the Indeterminate next lower thereto, or prision correccional in its minimum
Sentence Law (ISL) is properly aligned with the to medium periods. Accordingly, the incremental penalty
fundamental principle and purpose of the ISL to uplift or the additional number of years for the corresponding
and redeem human material and to prevent unnecessary increase in the amounts involved in the fraud is merely
and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and considered as a “modifying circumstance” which is
economic usefulness,[1] I am constrained to disagree considered in the determination of the maximum-but not
with the reasoning of the majority. the minimum-of the indeterminate sentence. Hence, the
range within which the minimum of the indeterminate
In lieu of a straight penalty, the ISL provides for sentence under the current computation can be pegged
guidelines for the determination of an indeterminate is permanently set at prision correccional in its minimum
sentence, which shall be composed of a maximum and a to medium periods.
minimum; thus, for crimes punishable under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), Section 1 of the ISL provides that On the other hand, the second interpretation provides
“the court shall sentence the accused to an that the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be arrived at by descending one degree down the scale
be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, from the principal penalty, after factoring in the
could be properly imposed under the rules of the said incremental penalty into the same. In other words, for
Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the purposes of determining the minimum of the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the indeterminate sentence, the so-called “prescribed
Code for the offense.”[2] (emphasis supplied) penalty” for frauds involving amounts exceeding P22,000
denotes a penalty which has already been computed
While there is no dispute as to the determination of the according to the number of years in excess of P22,000.
maximum of the indeterminate sentence for the crime of Necessarily, the distance between the maximum and the
estafa, the ponente puts into issue the computation of minimum shall always be only one degree away.
the minimum when the crime committed calls for the
computation of additional or incremental penalties. I find that this second interpretation is more in keeping
with the intent and letter of the ISL and the RPC.
The penalty prescribed by the Code for the crime of
estafa is worded as follows: It is a basic rule in statutory construction that care should
be taken that every part of a statute be given effect and
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall a construction that could render a provision inoperative
defraud another by any of the means mentioned should be avoided, and inconsistent provisions should
hereinbelow shall be punished by: be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a
harmonious whole; for taken in solitude, a word or
phrase might easily convey a meaning quite different
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum from the one actually intended and evident when a word
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the or phrase is considered with those with which it is
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not associated.[4]
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the

239
 AB
In our jurisdiction, “incremental penalty” as used in manner in which Article 315 was crafted lends an insight
relation to crimes against property now refers to the into the intention of the RPC, which is to ensure that the
phrase “and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty for the crime committed be commensurate to the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its amount of the fraud. Hence, I submit that the so-called
maximum period, adding one year for each additional incremental penalty is exactly that–an incremental
10,000 pesos.” I submit that for purposes of determining penalty–and not a modifying circumstance. Short of the
the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the “penalty RPC enumerating all the gradations of the penalty for
prescribed” for estafa should include the incremental each amount that might be involved, the Code merely
penalty, since the penalty for estafa, as that in theft, provided a formula in order to arrive at the prescribed
hinges on the value or amount involved.[5] penalty. Nonetheless, a prescribed penalty had been
intended, and that prescribed penalty can still be easily
People v. Gabres[6] was the first case which expounded derived after a mechanical application of the given
on the treatment of the incremental penalty as a formula. In fact, this is not the first time we treated a
modifying circumstance in the computation of the penalty modifying circumstance as separate and distinct from the
for estafa involving amounts exceeding P22,000.00. It incremental penalty, thus, in the case of People v.
explained thus: Hernando[8]:

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum On the other hand, the minimum of the indeterminate
term of the penalty shall be “that which, in view of the sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed” lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the
under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall offense, without first considering any modifying
be “within the range of the penalty next lower to that circumstance nor the incremental penalty for the amount
prescribed” for the offense. The penalty next lower in excess of twenty two thousand (P22,000.00) pesos.
should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code Such penalty is prision mayor, with a duration of six (6)
for the offense, without first considering any modifying years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. (emphasis
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. supplied)
The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law
to the sound discretion of the court and it can be
anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower
without any reference to the periods into which it might This position is boosted by the qualifier at the end of the
be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are provision on the penalty for frauds involving amounts
considered only in the imposition of the maximum term exceeding P22,000. To revisit Article 315:
of the indeterminate sentence.
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case defraud another by any of the means mentioned
exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the hereinbelow shall be punished by:
initial determination of the indeterminate penalty;
instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
against accused-appellant is prision correccional each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which
maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
lower would then be prision correccional minimum to cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties
medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other
sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months while prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should (emphasis supplied)
at least be six (6) years and one (1) day because the
amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus an As can be seen, the RPC attempts to limit the penalty
additional one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00. prescribed, i.e., the computed penalty, to a maximum of
(emphasis supplied) twenty years. Furthermore, the computed penalty is
mandated to be termed prision mayor or reclusion
To my mind, the rationale in Gabres is flawed. A plain temporal, as the case may be, in keeping with the
reading of the provision on estafa yields the conclusion statement of the prescribed penalties for frauds of lower
that the law, as in the crime of theft,[7] intended a amounts. Had the law intended the incremental penalty
graduated penalty, viz: for estafa involving the amount of to be a modifying circumstance, there would have been
P200 and below, the penalty shall be arresto mayor in its no sense in doing so. The more plausible explanation,
medium and maximum periods; for amounts over P200 therefore, is that the RPC is prescribing a penalty for
but not exceeding P6,000, arresto mayor in its maximum frauds exceeding P22,000. On this note, therefore, I am
period to prision correccional in its minimum period; for in agreement with the view that the penalty of prision
amounts over P6,000 but not exceeding P12,000, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum
correccional in its minimum and medium periods; and provided in the Code is merely the initial prescription or
finally, the penalty subject of the controversy herein, the starting point–but not the complete penalty–which
“prision correccional in its maximum period to prision should be the basis for determining the range of “the
mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Code” in
over P12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if order to determine the minimum of the indeterminate
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty sentence.
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional The rational backbone and main justification of the first
10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be interpretation is founded upon the rule in statutory
imposed shall not exceed twenty years.” Verily, the construction that penal laws should be construed in favor
240
 AB
of the accused. Mindful as I am of the woes and wails of
our prisoners, I cannot bring myself to ignore the error in IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to AFFIRM the decision of
this reasoning. the Court of Appeals.

It must be recalled that the construction in favor of the II. J. Corona, Separate Opinion
accused is rooted in the presumption of innocence which
stems from the constitutional right to due process. Jurisprudence shows that there are two schools of
Hence, the strict construction against the government as thought on the incremental penalty in estafa vis-à-vis the
regards penal laws pertains to cases in which the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under the first school of
accused stands to be deprived of either life, liberty or thought, the minimum term is fixed at prision
property. correccional while the maximum term can reach up to
reclusion temporal. This is the general interpretation. It
was resorted to in People v. Pabalan, People v.
In the instant case, I find that the application of this rule Benemerito, People v. Gabres and in a string of cases.
is somewhat strained. For one, the threat of losing life, On the other hand, under the second school of thought,
liberty or property without due process of law is more the minimum term is one degree away from the
apparent than real, because the subjects of the ISL are maximum term and therefore varies as the amount of the
no longer merely accused individuals. On the contrary, thing stolen or embezzled rises or falls. It is the line of
they are already convicted felons whose guilt had jurisprudence that follows People v. De la Cruz . Among
already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I the cases of this genre are People v. Romero, People v.
do not see how they can still be accorded the Dinglasan and Salazar v. People. The Court is urged in
presumption of innocence. this case to adopt a consistent position by categorically
discarding one school of thought.
Further, I am in doubt as to the characterization of the
ISL as a penal law that could warrant a presumption of Hence, our dilemma: which of the two schools of thought
innocence for the accused. A penal law is an act of the should we affirm? Justice Corona subscribes to the first
legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes school of thought since it is more favorable to the
penalties for its violations.[9] A closer look at the ISL, accused.
however, reveals that it does not make any act
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case
punishable. Its complete title is telling: “An Act To
exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the
Provide For An Indeterminate Sentence And Parole For
initial determination of the indeterminate penalty;
All Persons Convicted Of Certain Crimes By The Courts
instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to
Of The Philippine Islands; To Create A Board Of
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the
Indeterminate Sentence And To Provide Funds Therefor;
maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This
And For Other Purposes.” Moreover, the classification of
interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal
the ISL as penal was made arbitrarily and without clear
laws should be construed in favor of the accused.
legal basis. People v. Nang Kay,[10] which cited the
Corpus Juris Secundum, points to the U.S. case of State If the circumstance is considered simply as a modifying
v. Groos[11] as its authority for saying that the ISL is a circumstance (as in Gabres), it will be disregarded in
penal statute. A perusal of the said U.S. case reveals, determining the minimum term of the indeterminate
however, that the penal character of the ISL was not put sentence. The starting point will be prision correccional
into issue in that case, and that it was merely assumed maximum to prision mayor minimum and the penalty
that the ISL is a penal law. Accordingly, I submit that the next lower will then be prision correccional in its
presumption of innocence minimum to medium periods, which has a duration of six
could not be used in granting leniency in the computation months and one day to four years and two months. From
of the minimum in the ISL. the foregoing, it is more favorable to the accused if the
circumstance (that more than P22,000 was involved) is
Finally, even if we concede that the ISL is a legislation to be considered as a modifying circumstance, not as a
akin to an act of grace geared towards the rehabilitation qualifying circumstance. Hence, I submit that the Gabres
of criminals, and it being so, the intention of the rule is preferable.
lawmakers must be given effect, I still stand firm that the
existing interpretation is erroneous and reeks of
disrespect to the sacrosanct principles of justice and 8. In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus, Pete Lagran
fairness.
Facts: On April 18, 1994, petitioner Pete C. Lagran was
It must be remembered that a statute’s clauses and convicted by the RTC of Quezon City of three (3) counts
phrases must not be taken separately, but in relation to of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22. He was
the statute’s totality. Further, each statute must be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year for
construed as to harmonize it with the pre-existing body each count and to pay a fine of P125,000.00, with
of laws. Provisions of statutes must be reconciled, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.1 He
unless clearly repugnant.[12] appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of
Appeals but the appeal was dismissed on July 11, 1997
In the present case, it is clear that it could not have been for failure to file appellant's brief. The decision became
the intention of the RPC to do away with the gradations final and executory on August 6, 1997 and entry of
of penalty for the crime of estafa. Yet that is precisely judgment was made on March 5, 1998.2
what the majority has decided to do today. To be sure,
the existing interpretation disturbs the ladderized penalty By virtue of a Commitment Order issued by Hon. Elsa I.
scheme provided in the RPC and grants an undeserved De Guzman, Presiding Judge, RTC of Quezon City,
protection to felons convicted of frauds involving higher Branch 93, petitioner was committed to the Quezon City
amounts. In effect, this puts in the same category those Jail on February 24, 1999.3 On April 3, 1999, he was
who merely committed frauds involving lower amounts, transferred to the New Bilibid Prison4 where he has
thus, defeating the letter and intent of the RPC and the been serving his sentence until the present.
ISL. For these reasons, I am duty bound to register my
dissent.
241
 AB
Petitioner filed the instant petition for habeas corpus on world. The offended party therefore is considered to
March 19, 2001. He prayed for his immediate release as have had constructive notice of the subsequent marriage
he had allegedly completed the service of his sentence. as of 1975; hence, prescription commenced to run on
Citing Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, he argued the day the marriage contract was registered. For this
that if the penalties or sentences imposed on the reason, the corresponding information for bigamy should
accused are identical, and such penalties or sentences have been filed on or before 1990 and not only in 1992.
emanated from one court and one complaint, the
accused shall serve them simultaneously. He stated that Petitioner likewise takes issue with the "alleged
he has been incarcerated for two (2) years and four (4) concealment of the bigamous marriage" as declared by
days, counted from February 28, 2001, thus, his the appellate court, insisting that the second marriage
detention in the New Bilibid Prison is now without legal was publicly held at Our Lady of Nativity Church in
basis. Marikina on 15 February 1975, and adding for good
measure that from the moment of registration the
Issue: marriage contract was open to inspection by any
interested person.
Ruling: Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code allows
simultaneous service of two or more penalties only if the On the other hand, the prosecution maintains that the
nature of the penalties so permit. The penalties that can prescriptive period does not begin from the commission
be simultaneously served are: (1) perpetual absolute of the crime but from the time of discovery by
disqualification, (2) perpetual special disqualification, (3) complainant which was in July 1991.
temporary absolute disqualification, (4) temporary
special disqualification, (5) suspension, (6) destierro, (7) Issue:
public censure, (8) fine and bond to keep the peace, (9)
civil interdiction, and (10) confiscation and payment of Ruling: Considering such concealment of the bigamous
costs. These penalties, except destierro, can be served marriage by the offender, if the prescriptive period for the
simultaneously with imprisonment. The penalties offense of bigamy were to be counted from the date of
consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be served registration thereof, the prosecution of the violators of
simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties. the said offense would almost be impossible.
Where the accused is sentenced to two or more terms of
imprisonment, the terms should be served successively. The interpretation urged by the petitioner would
encourage fearless violations of a social institution
In the case at bar, petitioner was sentenced to suffer one cherished and protected by law.
year imprisonment for every count of the offense
committed. The nature of the sentence does not allow To this we may also add that the rule on constructive
petitioner to serve all the prison terms simultaneously. notice will make de rigueur the routinary inspection or
Applying the rule on successive service of sentence, we verification of the marriages listed in the National Census
find that petitioner has not yet completed the service of Office and in various local civil registries all over the
his sentence as he commenced serving his sentence country to make certain that no second or even third
only on February 24, 1999. His prayer, therefore, for the marriage has been contracted without the knowledge of
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has no basis. the legitimate spouse. This is too formidable a task to
even contemplate.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL 2. Republic vs. Desierto

LIABILITY Facts: Before us is a petition for certiorari1 which seeks

to annul the Review and Recommendation2 dated
1. Sermonia vs. CA August 6, 1998 of Graft Investigation Officer I Emora C.
Pagunuran, approved by Ombudsman Aniano A.
Facts: In an information filed on 26 May 1992, petitioner Desierto, dismissing the petitioner's complaint in OMB-0-
Jose C. Sermonia was charged with bigamy before the 90-2808 against private respondents Eduardo M.
RTC of Pasig, Br. 151, for contracting marriage with Ma. Cojuangco, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara
Lourdes Unson on 15 February 1975 while his prior Lobregat, Rolando Dela Cuesta, Jose R. Eleazar, Jr.,
marriage to Virginia C. Nievera remained valid and Jose C. Concepcion, Danilo S. Ursua, Narciso M. Pineda
subsisting. 5 and Augusto Orosa, for violation of Republic Act No.
3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground Practices Act as well as the Order3 dated September 25,
that his criminal liability for bigamy has been 1998 denying petitioner's subsequent motion for
extinguished by prescription. reconsideration of the said Review and
Recommendation.
In the order of 1 October 1992, respondent judge denied
the motion to quash. On 27 October 1992, he likewise It appears that on February 12, 1990 the Office of the
denied the motion to reconsider his order of denial. Solicitor General (OSG)4 initiated the complaint for
violation of R.A. No. 3019 before the Presidential
Petitioner challenged the above orders before the Court Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The
of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and complaint was subsequently referred to the Office of the
prohibition. In the assailed decision of 21 January 1993, Ombudsman5 and docketed as OMB-0-90-2808. The
his petition was dismissed for lack of merit. 6 referral of the case to the Ombudsman was in line with
our decision in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG,6 promulgated
In this recourse, petitioner contends that his criminal on October 2, 1990, wherein we declared that while the
liability for bigamy has been obliterated by prescription. PCGG has the power to conduct preliminary
He avers that since the second marriage contract was investigation, it "cannot possibly conduct the preliminary
duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar in investigation of said criminal complaints with the cold
1975,7 such fact of registration makes it a matter of neutrality of an impartial judge", after having earlier
public record and thus constitutes notice to the whole gathered evidence concerning alleged ill-gotten wealth
242
 AB
against the respondents, and also after having issued a (UCPB) for the NIDC as administrator-trustee of the
freeze order against all properties of respondent CIDF. UCPB is a commercial bank acquired by the
Cojuangco, Jr.7 government through the CCSF for the benefit of the
coconut farmers. On August 27, 1982, President Marcos
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that respondent lifted the coconut levy. With the only financial source of
Cojuangco, Jr., taking advantage of his close the CIDF depleted, UCPB had no choice but to terminate
relationship with then President Marcos, had caused the the agreement with the AII effective December 31, 1982.
latter to issue favorable decrees to advance his personal
and business interests, had caused the government Adversely affected by this turn of events, All demanded
through the National Investment Development arbitration. A Board of Arbitrators was created pursuant
Corporation (NIDC) to enter into a contract with him to the arbitration clause in the MOA. AII nominated Atty.
under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to Esteban Bautista while UCPB designated Atty. Anacleto
the government, and, in conspiracy with the aforenamed Dideles. In turn, the two appointed Atty. Bartolome
members of the UCPB Board of Directors, in flagrant Carale, a professor at the UP College of Law, as third
breach of the fiduciary duty as administrator-trustee of member and Chairman of the Board.
the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CIDF),
manipulated the said Fund resulting in the successful On March 29, 1983, the Board of Arbitrators rendered a
siphoning of Eight Hundred Forty Million Seven Hundred decision awarding to AII liquidated damages for Nine
Eighty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Five Pesos Hundred Fifty-Eight Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand
and Fifty-Three Centavos (P840,789,855.53) of CIDF to Pesos (P958,650,000.00) from the CIDF. From this
his own corporation, the Agricultural Investors, Inc. (AII); award was deducted the Four Hundred Twenty-Six
and that respondents were directly or indirectly Million Two Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Six Hundred
interested for personal gain or had material interest in Forty Pesos (P426,261,640.00) advanced by the NIDC
the transactions requiring the approval of a board, panel for the development of the seed garden, leaving a
or group of which they were members, in violation of the balance due to AII amounting to Five Hundred Thirty-
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to the grave Two Million Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand
damage and prejudice of public interest, the Filipino Three Hundred Fifty-Four Pesos (P532,388,354.00).
people, the Republic of the Philippines, and the coconut Costs of arbitration and the arbitrator's fee of One
farmers. Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) were also
taken from the CIDF.14
Apparently, during the early stage of the Martial Law rule
of the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1972, On April 19, 1983, the UCPB Board of Directors,
respondent Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco, Jr., through composed of respondents Cojuangco, Jr., as President,
AII, a private corporation owned and controlled by Enrile as Chairman, Dela Cuesta, Zayco, Ursua and
respondent Cojuangco. Jr., started to develop a coconut Pineda as members, adopted Resolution No. 111-83,
seed garden in its property in Bugsuk Island, Palawan.8 resolving to "note" the decision of the Board of
Arbitrators, allowing the arbitral award to lapse with
On November 14, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 582 finality.
was issued by then President Marcos,9 which created
the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CIDF). The The complaint filed by the Solicitor General alleged that
CIDF is one of the four (4) so-called "Coco-Levy Funds" the MOA "is a one-sided contract with provisions clearly
set-up to revitalize the coconut industry. The CIDF was stacked up against the NIDC thereby placing the latter in
envisioned to finance a nationwide coconut-replanting a no-win situation." It cited several stipulations in the
program using "precocious high-yielding hybrid contract to substantiate its claim, to wit:15
seednuts" to be distributed for free b coconut farmers.10
Its initial capital of One Hundred Million Pesos 1. Under Section 9.1 of the MOA, neither party shall be
(P100,000,000.00) was to be paid from the Coconut liable for any loss or damage due to the non-
Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF), with an performance of their respective obligations resulting from
additional amount of at least twenty centavos (P0.20) per any cause beyond the reasonable control of the party
kilogram of copra resecada out of the CCSF collected by concerned. However, under Section 9.3, notwithstanding
the Philippine Coconut Authority.11 the occurrence of such causes, the obligation of the
NIDC to pay AII's share of the development costs
Six (6) days after the issuance of P.D. No. 582, or on amounting to P426,260,000.00 would still remain
November 20, 1974, at the instigation of respondent enforceable.
Cojuangco, Jr., AII, represented by respondent
Cojuangco, Jr. as Chairman and President, and NIDC, 2. Under Sec. 11.2, if NIDC fails to perform its
represented by its Senior Vice-President, Augusto E. obligations, for any cause whatsoever, it will be liable out
Orosa, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement of the CIDF, not only for the development costs, but also
(MOA). Cojuangco had an exclusive contract with Dr. for liquidated damages equal to the stipulated price of
Yann Fremond of the Research Institute for Oil and the hybrid seednuts for a period of five (5) years at the
Oilseeds, granting the former the exclusive right to rate of 19,173,000 seednuts per annum, totaling
establish and operate a seed garden for the production P958,650.00.16
of Ivory Coast Hybrid Seednuts, a hybrid developed by
Dr. Fremond, and supposedly most suitable for 3. Under Section 11.3, while AII was given the right to
Philippine soil and climate.12 AII and NIDC stipulated, in terminate the contract in case of force majeure, no such
fine, that AII shall develop the Bugsuk property for the right was given in favor of NIDC. Moreover, AII can do so
growing of hybrid seednuts and sell the entire production without incurring any liability for damages.
to NIDC, which shall in turn pay AII part of the costs in
the development and operation of the seed garden and 4. AII was only required to exert best efforts to produce a
the support facilities.13 projected number of seednuts while NIDC was required
to set aside and reserve from CIDF such amount as
On June 11, 1978, President Marcos issued P.D. No. would insure full and prompt payment.
1468, otherwise known as the Revised Coconut Industry
Code, substituting the United Coconut Planters Bank
243
 AB
Respondent Cojuangco, Jr. sought the dismissal of the during the Marcos regime. Private respondents were
complaint on the ground of prescription, citing the 1992 closely associated with Marcos who unquestionably
cases of People v. Sandiganbayan,17 and Zaldivia v. wielded power and influence and/or who, by themselves,
Hon. Andres B. Reyes.18 were also highly-placed in government. Thus assuming
that the offense charged is deemed to have been
On December 29, 1997, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) committed upon the execution of the contract in
Manuel J. Tablada recommended the dismissal of the question, who could have known of the existence of this
case, which was subsequently assigned to GIO I Emora contract apart from the contracting parties thereto?
C. Pagunuran. GIO I Pagunuran issued the assailed Being privies to the contract, would private respondents
memorandum, denominated "Review and have initiated criminal suits against themselves?
Recommendation", dated August 6, 1998 wherein she Assuming that third persons to the contract knew of its
found that the alleged offense had allegedly prescribed. existence, was there a reasonable opportunity, or even
Following the case of People v. Sandiganbayan, GIO I political will, to prosecute those involved in the execution
Pagunuran reckoned the prescription period from the of the questioned contract?
date the Memorandum of Agreement was entered into,
or on November 20, 1974. As the case was filed only on To recall, due to the abnormal situation obtaining at that
February 12, 1990, respondent Ombudsman ruled that time, no one dared question the excesses and
the same was filed beyond the prescriptive period of ten abscesses of the officialdom which is eloquently
(10) years as fixed under Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 3019. In exemplified by subject case.
addition, the "Review and Recommendation" ruled that
the questioned MOA was expressly confirmed and The applicable provisions of law on prescription of
ratified by P.D. No. 96119 (1976) and P.D. No. 146820 offenses are found in Article 90 and Article 91 of the
(1978) and, thus, was given "legislative imprimatur." Revised Penal Code for offenses punishable thereunder
and Act No. 3326 for those penalized by special laws.
The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated R.A. No. 3019 being a special law, the commencement
September 11, 1998, arguing that (a) the offense of the period for the prescription for any act violating it is
charged in the complaint falls within the category of an governed by Section 2 of Act No. 3326,31 which
ill-gotten wealth case which under the Constitution is provides:
imprescriptible; and (b) that void contracts are not
subject to ratification and/or confirmation. Inasmuch SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day
public respondent Ombudsman denied petitioner's of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the
motion for reconsideration in the Order dated September same be not known at the time, from the discovery
25, 1998, petitioner interposed on December 28, 1998 thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
the instant petition raising two (2) issues for resolution. investigation and punishment.

Issue: The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings

are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to
Ruling: It has already been settled in Presidential Ad run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. not constituting jeopardy.
Desierto27 that Section 15 of Article XI of the
Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of As a rule, if the commission of the crime is known, the
ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases such as the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day it
complaint against the respondents in OMB-0-90-2808. was committed.32 However, in cases where the time of
Conversely, prescription of criminal cases are governed commission is unknown, prescription shall only run from
by special laws on prescription. its discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. Ordinarily, there is no
Furthermore, to construe Section 15, Article XI of the problem in determining the date when the crime consists
1987 Constitution in order to give it retroactive of a series of acts, especially when some or all of these
application to the private respondents will run counter to acts are innocent in themselves.
another constitutional provision, that is, Section 22,
Article III which provides that "No ex post facto law or bill ACT NO. 3326
of attainder shall be enacted." An ex post facto law is ACT NO. 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS
defined, in part, as a law which deprives persons OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED
accused of crime of some lawful protection of a former BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL
amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its BEGIN TO RUN
consequences, alters the situation of a person to his Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall,
disadvantage.28 A construction which raises a conflict unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
between different parts of the constitution is not accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for
permissible when by reasonable construction, the parts offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for
may made to harmonize.29 not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for
those punished by imprisonment for more than one
We now turn to another novel theory of the Solicitor month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for
General. He claims that there are "special those punished by imprisonment for two years or more,
circumstances" that would warrant the reckoning of the but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any
prescription period, not from the date of the violation of other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or
the penalizing law because "it could not have been more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe
known at that time", but from the EDSA Revolution of after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
February 1986, which is supposedly the only time that ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
the offense could have been discovered. According to
the Solicitor General:30 Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
It bears emphasizing that the criminal acts complained of be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and
against private respondents in this case were committed
244
 AB
the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation appeal and thus there is no necessity for the
and punishment. presentation of evidence thereon before the court a quo.
Thus, this Court may accordingly dismiss Criminal Case
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings Nos. 28031-28049 pending before the Sandiganbayan
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to and Criminal Case Nos. 04-231857–04-231860 pending
run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons before the RTC of Manila, all on the ground of
not constituting jeopardy. prescription.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be In its Comment,3 the Ombudsman argues that the
acts defining and penalizing violations of the law not dismissal of the informations in Criminal Case Nos.
included in the Penal Code. 13406-13429 does not mean that petitioner was
thereafter exempt from criminal prosecution; that new
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval. informations may be filed by the Ombudsman should it
find probable cause in the conduct of its preliminary
ACT NO. 3763, NOVEMBER 26, 1930 investigation; that the filing of the complaint with the
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF ACT Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
NUMBERED THIRTY-THREE HUNDRED AND in 1987 and the filing of the information with the
TWENTY-SIX, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH Sandiganbayan in 1989 interrupted the prescriptive
PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS period; that the absence of the petitioner from the
PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL Philippines from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the
ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN aforesaid period based on Article 91 of the Revised
PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN," AS Penal Code.
AMENDED BY ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-FIVE
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE, FIXING TWO MONTHS For its part, the PCGG avers in its Comment4 that, in
AS THE TERM FOR THE PRESCRIPTION OF accordance with the 1987 Constitution and RA No. 6770
VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS AND or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Omdudsman need
CONDITIONS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OF THE not wait for a new complaint with a new docket number
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. for it to conduct a preliminary investigation on the alleged
offenses of the petitioner; that considering that both RA
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of No. 3019 and Act No. 3326 or the Act To Establish
Representatives of the Philippines in Legislature Periods of Prescription For Violations Penalized By
assembled and by the authority of the same: Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide
When Prescription Shall Begin To Run, are silent as to
SECTION 1. Section one of Act Numbered Thirty-three whether prescription should begin to run when the
hundred and twenty-six, as amended by Act Numbered offender is absent from the Philippines, the Revised
Thirty-five hundred and eighty-five, is hereby further Penal Code, which answers the same in the negative,
amended to read as follows: should be applied.

"SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts The issues for resolution are: (1) whether the preliminary
shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal
in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for Case Nos. 13406-13429 was a nullity; and (2) whether
offences punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for the offenses for which petitioner are being charged have
not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for already prescribed.
those punished by imprisonment for more than one
month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for Anent the first issue, we reiterate our ruling in the
those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, assailed Decision that the preliminary investigation
but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos.
other offence punished by imprisonment for six years or 13406-13429 is a valid proceeding despite the previous
more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe dismissal thereof by the Sandiganbayan in its Minute
after twenty years: Provided, however, That all offences Resolution5 dated February 10, 2004 which reads:
against any law or part of law administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five Crim. Cases Nos. 13406-13429–PEO. vs. BENJAMIN T.
years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall ROMUALDEZ
prescribe after two months.
Considering that the Decision of the Honorable Supreme
"Violations of the regulations or conditions of Court in G.R. Nos. 143618-41, entitled "Benjamin
certificates of public convenience issued by the Public ‘Kokoy’ Romualdez vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan
Service Commission, shall prescribe after two months." (First Division, et al.)" promulgated on July 30, 2002
annulled and set aside the orders issued by this Court on
SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect on its approval. June 8, 2000 which, among others, denied the accused’s
motion to quash the informations in these cases; that in
Approved, November 26, 1930. particular the above-mentioned Decision ruled that the
herein informations may be quashed because the officer
3. Romualdez vs. Marcelo who filed the same had no authority to do so; and that
the said Decision has become final and executory on
Facts: Petitioner claims that the Office of the November 29, 2002, these cases are considered
Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in DISMISSED. Let these cases be sent to the archives.
recommending the filing of 24 informations against him
for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 Issue:
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; that the I. Whether or not the offenses charged in the
Ombudsman cannot revive the aforementioned cases subject criminal cases have prescribed.
which were previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan II. However, both respondents in the instant case
in its Resolution of February 10, 2004; that the defense aver that, applying Article 91 of the Revised
of prescription may be raised even for the first time on Penal Code suppletorily, the absence of the
245
 AB
petitioner from the Philippines from 1986 until In our view, the phrase "institution of judicial proceedings
April 27, 2000 prevented the prescriptive period for its investigation and punishment" may be either
for the alleged offenses from running. disregarded as surplusage or should be deemed
III. Whether the filing of the complaint with the preceded by the word "until." Thus, Section 2 may be
PCGG in 1987 as well as the filing of the read as:
informations with the Sandiganbayan to initiate
Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 in 1989 "Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
interrupted the running of the prescriptive period commission of the violation of the law; and if the same
such that when the Ombudsman directed be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof;"
petitioner to file his counter-affidavit on March 3,
2004, the offenses have already prescribed. or as:
Ruling:
I. We held in the case of Domingo v. "Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
Sandiganbayan that: commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and
until institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation
In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense and punishment." (Emphasis supplied)25
charged, the following should be considered: (1) the Thus, this Court rules that the prescriptive period of the
period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the offenses herein began to run from the discovery thereof
time the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the or on May 8, 1987, which is the date of the complaint
time the prescriptive period was interrupted.21 filed by the former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez
against the petitioner with the PCGG.
Petitioner is being charged with violations of Section 7 of
RA No. 3019 for failure to file his Statements of Assets In the case of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
and Liabilities for the period 1967-1985 during his tenure Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto26 this Court
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and already took note that:
for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical
Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs. In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed
prior to the February 1986 EDSA Revolution that ousted
Section 11 of RA No. 3019 provides that all offenses President Ferdinand E. Marcos, we ruled that the
punishable therein shall prescribe in 15 years. government as the aggrieved party could not have
Significantly, this Court already declared in the case of known of the violations at the time the questioned
People v. Pacificador22 that: transactions were made. Moreover, no person would
have dared to question the legality of those transactions.
It appears however, that prior to the amendment of Thus, the counting of the prescriptive period commenced
Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by B.P. Blg. 195 which was from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992 after an
approved on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive period for exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc
offenses punishable under the said statute was only ten Committee on Behest Loans.27
(10) years. The longer prescriptive period of fifteen (15) II. We disagree.
years, as provided in Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 as
amended by B.P. Blg. 195, does not apply in this case Section 2 of Act. No. 3326 is conspicuously silent as to
for the reason that the amendment, not being favorable whether the absence of the offender from the Philippines
to the accused (herein private respondent), cannot be bars the running of the prescriptive period. The silence of
given retroactive effect. Hence, the crime prescribed on the law can only be interpreted to mean that Section 2 of
January 6, 1986 or ten (10) years from January 6, Act No. 3326 did not intend such an interruption of the
1976.23 prescription unlike the explicit mandate of Article 91.
Thus, for offenses allegedly committed by the petitioner Thus, as previously held:
from 1962 up to March 15, 1982, the same shall
prescribe in 10 years. On the other hand, for offenses Even on the assumption that there is in fact a legislative
allegedly committed by the petitioner during the period gap caused by such an omission, neither could the Court
from March 16, 1982 until 1985, the same shall prescribe presume otherwise and supply the details thereof,
in 15 years. because a legislative lacuna cannot be filled by judicial
fiat. Indeed, courts may not, in the guise of the
As to when these two periods begin to run, reference is interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and include
made to Act No. 3326 which governs the computation of therein situations not provided nor intended by the
prescription of offenses defined by and penalized under lawmakers. An omission at the time of the enactment,
special laws. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides: whether careless or calculated, cannot be judicially
supplied however after later wisdom may recommend
SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the inclusion. Courts are not authorized to insert into the
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the law what they think should be in it or to supply what they
same be not known at the time, from the discovery think the legislature would have supplied if its attention
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its has been called to the omission.
investigation and punishment.
III. Under Section 2 of Act No. 3326, the
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings prescriptive period shall be interrupted
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to "when proceedings are instituted against the
run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons guilty person." However, there is no such
not constituting jeopardy. proceeding instituted against the petitioner
to warrant the tolling of the prescriptive
In the case of People v. Duque,24 we construed the periods of the offenses charged against him.
aforequoted provision, specifically the rule on the
running of the prescriptive period as follows: In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan,29 petitioner averred
that PCGG acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse
of discretion in conducting a preliminary investigation of
cases not falling within its competence.30 This Court, in
246
 AB
its resolve to "deal with the merits of the case to remove committed by the petitioner for the years 1963-1982
the possibility of any misunderstanding as to the course prescribed 10 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8,
which it wishes petitioner’s cases in the Sandiganbayan 1997. On the other hand, the alleged offenses committed
to take"31declared invalid – by the petitioner for the years 1983-1985 prescribed 15
years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 2002.
the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG
over the 24 offenses ascribed to Romualdez (of failure to Therefore, when the Office of the Special Prosecutor
file annual statements of assets and liabilities), for lack of initiated the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case
jurisdiction of said offenses.32 Nos. 13406-13429 on March 3, 2004 by requiring the
petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit, the alleged
In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan,33 petitioner assailed offenses subject therein have already prescribed.
the validity of the informations filed with the Indeed, the State has lost its right to prosecute petitioner
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 for the offenses subject of Criminal Case Nos. 28031-
considering that the same were subscribed and filed by 28049 pending before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal
the PCGG. In granting petitioner’s plea, this Court held, Case Nos. 04-231857–04-231860 pending before the
thus: RTC of Manila.

4. Cruz III vs. Go

Here, the informations were filed by an unauthorized
party. The defect cannot be cured by conducting another Facts: By virtue of the 4 November 1993 Decision of the
preliminary investigation. An invalid information is no RTC, Branch 168, Pasig City in Criminal Case No.
information at all and cannot be the basis for criminal 87411, respondent Rolito T. Go was convicted of murder
proceedings. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He began serving his sentence on 30 April
Indeed, the nullity of the proceedings initiated by then 1996 at the New Bilibid Prison.
Solicitor General Chavez in 1987 with the PCGG and by
the PCGG with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 is judicially On 30 July 2008, in carrying out the Resolution and Certi
settled. In contemplation of the law, no proceedings exist cate of Eligibility by then Bureau of Corrections (BuCor)
that could have merited the suspension of the Director Oscar C. Calderon, the New Bilibid Prison
prescriptive periods. Classification Board granted Go, along with other 24
inmates, a colonist status.
Besides, the only proceeding that could interrupt the
running of prescription is that which is filed or initiated by Accordingly, in view of his commuted sentence, Go filed
the offended party before the appropriate body or office. a petition for habeas corpus on 30 January 2014,
Thus, in the case of People v. Maravilla,35 this Court pleading for his release. He posits that his original prison
ruled that the filing of the complaint with the municipal sentence which shall expire on 31 January 2022 instead
mayor for purposes of preliminary investigation had the should have expired on 21 August 2013 upon deduction
effect of suspending the period of prescription. Similarly, of lawful and proper allowances for good conduct,
in the case of Llenes v. Dicdican,36 this Court held that colonist status, and preventive imprisonment based on
the filing of a complaint against a public officer with the the provisions of Act No. 2489, otherwise known as "An
Ombudsman tolled the running of the period of Act Authorizing Special Compensation, Credits, and
prescription. Modi cation in the Sentence of
Prisoners as a Reward for Exceptional Conduct and
In the case at bar, however, the complaint was filed with Workmanship and for Other Purposes."
the wrong body, the PCGG. Thus, the same could not
have interrupted the running of the prescriptive periods. In opposition to Go's release, petitioners maintained that
Go's sentence neither has expired nor was commuted.
Other Notes: According to petitioners, the grant of colonist status on
Go did not carry with it the automatic commutation of his
There is no reason why we should deny petitioner the sentence from the indivisible penalty of reclusion
benefits accruing from the liberal construction of perpetua to thirty (30) years because only the President
prescriptive laws on criminal statutes. Prescription has the power to commute a sentence. Sans the
emanates from the liberality of the State. Any bar to or signature of the President, any commutation is
cause of interruption in the operation of prescriptive ineffectual.
periods cannot simply be implied nor derived by mere
implication. Any diminution of this endowment must be On 28 April 2014, the RTC granted the petition and
directly and expressly sanctioned by the source itself, issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The RTC found that
the State. Any doubt on this matter must be resolved in Go's sentence was validly commuted from reclusion
favor of the grantee thereof, the accused. perpetua to 30 years pursuant to Section 7, Chapter 3 of
the BuCor Manual:
In the case of People v. Pacificador,46 we ruled that: Section 7. Privileges of a colonist. — A colonist shall
It bears emphasis, as held in a number of cases, that in have the following privileges:
the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes,
that which is more favorable to the accused is to be a. Credit of additional GCTA of five (5) days for such
adopted. The said legal principle takes into account the calendar month while retains said classification aside
nature of the law on prescription of crimes which is an from the regular GCTA authorized under Article 97 of the
act of amnesty and liberality on the part of the state in Revised Penal Code;
favor of the offender. In the case of People v. Moran, this b. Automatic reduction of life sentence imposed on the
Court amply discussed the nature of the statute of colonist to a sentence of thirty (30) years; (Emphasis
limitations in criminal cases. supplied)

In view of the foregoing, the applicable 10-and-15-year Issue: Petitioners also aver that the commutation of
prescriptive periods in the instant case, were not Go's prison sentence is ineffective because it has no
interrupted by any event from the time they began to run prior approval by the President in violation of Section 19,
on May 8, 1987. As a consequence, the alleged offenses Article VII of the Constitution, which mandates that only
247
 AB
the President has the power to exercise executive delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
clemency. other sources of obligation from which the civil liability
may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
Ruling: We deny the petition.
a) Law 20
As correctly resolved by the trial court, while only the
President can commute a prison sentence, Articles 70 8 b) Contracts
and 97 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) recognize
partial reduction or commutation of sentences by c) Quasi-contracts
providing that "for penal penalties, the duration shall be
computed for 30 years and the allowances of good d) . . .
conduct must be applied on top of the [good conduct
time allowance] accorded to an inmate with a colonist e) Quasi-delicts
status."
Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number
Accordingly, to implement the provisions of Article 97, 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued
the law has granted the but only by way of filing a separate civil action and
Director of Prisons the power to grant good conduct subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
allowances. The mandate of the Director of Prisons Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
embodied in Article 99 of the RPC is clear and action may be enforced either against the
unambiguous. In fact, once granted, such allowances executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
shall not be revoked. Article 99 of the RPC explicitly depending on the source of obligation upon which the
states: same is based as explained above.

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of
granted shall not be revoked. (Emphasis supplied) the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
offended party instituted together therewith the civil
Therefore, after crediting his preventive imprisonment of action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
nine (9) months and sixteen (16) days, and the regular liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under Act No. criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article
3815 and Special Credit Time Allowance (SCTA) under 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
Act No. 2409 granted upon him, Go has completed apprehension on a possible privation of right by
serving his sentence of thirty (30) years on 21 August prescription.
2013, which he commenced to serve on 30 April 1996.
6. SEC vs. Intraport Resources Corp.
5. People vs. Bayotas

Facts: In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch Facts: In 1994, an investigative proceeding was
16, RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was conducted by the SEC against respondent Interport
charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof on Resources Corporation for failure to make timely
June 19, 1991 in a decision penned by Judge Manuel E. disclosures of their negotiations with Ganda Energy
Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died Holdings, a violation against the Revised Securities Act.
on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due However, the proceeding was interrupted by a writ of
to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals,
encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric which became permanent in 1998.
malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its During the pendency of this case, the Securities
Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal Regulations Code repealed the Revised Securities Act,
aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor which give SEC of its jurisdiction to continue
General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas' civil investigating the case, or the RTC to hear any case
liability arising from his commission of the offense which may later be filed against herein respondent.
charged.
As a defense, respondents averred that the case is
Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his already deemed moot and academic, since any criminal
conviction extinguish his civil liability? complaint that may be filed against them resulting from
the SEC investigation has already prescribed. They point
Ruling: Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, out the prescriptive period of 12 years from the time of
we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished the commission of the crime, under Sec. 1 of Act No.
his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on 3326 (An Act to Establish Period of Prescription for
the act complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the Violations Penalized by Special Acts). Since the offense
appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. was committed in 1994, prescription has already set in
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction as early as 2006.
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil Issue: Whether or not the filing of complaint by SEC
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice against respondent has already prescribed, in pursuant
Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to Sec. 1 of Act No. 3326.
to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only
the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on Ruling: No. It is an established doctrine that a
the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in preliminary investigation interrupts the period of
senso strictiore." prescription.

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives As defined, a preliminary investigation is essentially a
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may determination whether an offense has been committed,
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
248
 AB
and whether there is probable cause for the accused to that despite the alleged positive identification made by
have committed the offense. Rolando Visbe (Visbe), the testimony of prosecution
witness Aneline Mendoza clearly shows the impossibility
Under Sec. 45 of the Revised Securities Act, the SEC of the same. Moreover, further casting doubt on the
has the authority to make such investigations as may alleged identification of accused appellant is Visbe’s
deem necessary to determine whether a person has unbelievable and inconsistent statements on how such
violated any provisions of this Act. Thereafter, the SEC identification was made. Meanwhile, in a Letter dated 21
may refer the case to the DOJ for preliminary September 2014 the Officer-inCharge of the New Bilibid
investigation and prosecution. Prison (NBP) informed the Court that accused appellant
died on 14 July 2014, as evidenced by the attached
Only after a finding of probable cause is made by the Death Certificate issued by NBP Medical Officer III Ruth
SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. B. Algones, M.D.
Thus, the investigation that was commenced by the SEC
in 1995, soon after it discovered the questionable acts of Issue:
the respondents, effectively interrupted the prescription
period. Given the nature and purpose of the investigation Ruling: Owing to this development, the Court now
conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the addresses the effect of death pending accused-
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in appellant’s appeal with regard to his criminal and civil
criminal cases, such investigation would surely interrupt liabilities.
the prescription period.
Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code is illuminating:
Other Notes:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. –
The Court further held that a criminal complaint for Criminal liability is totally extinguished: (1) By the death
violation of any law or rule administered by SEC must of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
first be filed with the latter. If the Commission finds that pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only
there is probable cause, it shall refer the case to the when the death of the offender occurs before final
DOJ. judgment;

The said case puts in perspective the nature of the xxxx

investigation undertaken by the SEC, which is a requisite
before a criminal case may be referred to the DOJ. In People v. Brillantes,9 the Court, citing People v.
Bayotas,10 clarified that:
In this case, it should be noted that SEC started the
investigative proceeding as early as 1994. This Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
investigation effectively interrupted the prescription extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
period. However, said proceedings were disrupted by a liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals on Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior
5 May 1995, which effectively enjoined the SEC from to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only
filing any criminal, civil, or administrative case against the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on
the respondents herein. the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in
senso strictiore."
The prescription period is interrupted by commencing the
proceeding for the prosecution of the accused. In In the case at bar, accused-appellant died before final
criminal cases, this is accomplished by initiating a judgment, as in fact, his motion for reconsideration is still
preliminary investigation. The prosecution of offenses pending resolution by the Court. As such, it therefore
punishable under the Revised Securities Act and becomes necessary for us to declare his criminal liability
Securities Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a as well as his civil liability ex delicto to have been
complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted extinguished by his death prior to final judgment.
by SEC motu propio.
WHEREFORE, the criminal and civil liability ex delicto of
7. People vs. Consorte accused appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco are
declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final
Facts: For the resolution of the Court is the Motion for judgment. The judgment or conviction against him is
Reconsideration1 of our Decision dated 9 July 2014, therefore SET ASIDE.
which affirmed the conviction of accused appellant
Benjie Consorte y Franco for the murder of Elizabeth
Palmar, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals

dated 27 May 2010 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01806 is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS (1) that
the amount of civil indemnity is increased from
₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00; and (2) that the amount of
exemplary damages is increased from ₱25,000.00 to
₱30,000.00. An interest, at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum shall be imposed on all the damages
awarded in this case from the date of finality of this
judgment until they are fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Accused-appellant raises the incredibility of his

identification as the perpetrator of the crime. He avers
249