Aggravating Circumstances: Classes, Common

Features, Respective Peculiarities, Their Requisites

People vs Veloso [G.R. No. !"#$. %cto&er ", $'#.(
Facts:
The building located in the City of Manila was
used by an organization known as the Parliamentary
Club. Jose Veloso was at that time a member of the
ouse of !e"resentati#es of the Phili""ine $egislature.
e was also the manager of the club.
The "olice of Manila had reliable information that
the so%called Parliamentary Club was nothing more than
a gambling house. J. F. Townsend& the chief of the
gambling s'uad& had been to the club and #erified this
fact. (s a result& )etecti#e (ndres *eronimo of the secret
ser#ice of the City of Manila& a""lied for& and obtained a
search warrant from Judge *arduno of the munici"al
court. Thus "ro#ided& the "olice attem"ted to raid the
Parliamentary Club. They found the doors to the
"remises closed and barred. (ccordingly& one band of
"olice& including "oliceman !osacker& ascended a
tele"hone "ole& so as to enter a window of the house.
+ther "olicemen& headed by Townsend& broke in the
outer door.
+nce inside the Parliamentary Club& nearly fifty
"ersons were a""rehended by the "olice. +ne of them
was the defendant Veloso. Veloso resisted the arrest. (t
last the "atience of the officers was e,hausted. -o
"oliceman !osacker took hold of Veloso only to meet
with his resistance. Veloso bit !osacker on the right
forearm& and ga#e him a blow in another "art of the body&
which in.ured the "oliceman 'uite se#erely.
Those who were arrested were e#entually
ac'uitted in the Court of First /nstance for lack of "roof&
with the sole e,ce"tion of Veloso& who was found guilty of
maintaining a gambling house. This case reached the
a""ellate court where the accused was finally sentenced
to "ay a fine of P011
/ssue:
eld:
C!/M/2($ $(34 !5-/-T(2C5 +F T5 (*52T- +F
T5 (6T+!/T7. 8 V& the manager of a club in the City
of Manila& forcibly resisted the "olice when the club was
raided as a gambling house V bit a "oliceman on the
right forearm and ga#e him a blow in another "art of the
body. V resisted being "laced in the "atrol wagon and
shouted offensi#e e"ithets against the "olice de"artment.
eld: That V was guilty of the crime of resistance of the
agents of the authority in #iolation of article 909 of the
Penal Code.
9 C+2-T/T6T/+2($ $(34 -5(!C5- (2)
-5/:6!5-4 -5(!C 3(!!(2T-4 ;J+2 )+5;
3(!!(2T-. 8 <y the ele#enth and eighteenth
"aragra"hs of the Phili""ine <ill of !ights& as found in the
"resent +rganic (ct& and by #arious "ro#isions of the
Phili""ine Code of Criminal Procedure& the security of the
dwelling and the "erson is guaranteed.
=. /).4 /)&4 /).4 /). 8 ( search warrant must conform
strictly to the re'uirements of the constitutional and
statutory "ro#isions under which it is issued. +therwise& it
is #oid.
>. /).4 /).4 /).4 /). 8 The warrant will always be
construed strictly without& howe#er& going the full length
of re'uiring technical accuracy.
0. /).4 /).4 /).4 /).4 )5-C!/PT/+2 +F P$(C5. 8 (
descri"tion a "lace to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can& with reasonable effort&
ascertain and identify the "lace intended.
?. /).4 /).4 /).4 /).4 /). 8 The affida#it for the search
warrant and the search warrant described the building to
be searched as ;the building 2o. @9> Calle (rzobis"o&
City of Manila& Phili""ine /slands.; eld: That this was a
sufficient designation of the "remises to be searched.
A. /).4 /).4 /).4 /).4 !/*T +F +FF/C5! T+ T(B5
P+--5--/+2 +F P!+P5!T7 F+62) +2 T5
P5!-+2 (!!5-T5). 8 (n officer making an arrest
may take from the "erson arrested any money or
"ro"erty found u"on his "erson& which was used in the
commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime& or
which may furnish the "erson arrested with the means of
committing #iolence or of esca"ing& or which may be
used as e#idence on the trial of the cause& but not
otherwise. CMoreno #s. (go Chi D@E1EF& @9 Phil.& >=E.G
H. /).4 /).4 /).4 /).4 )5-C!/PT/+2 +F P5!-+2. 8
The warrant for the a""rehension of an unnamed "arty is
#oid& ;e,ce"t in those cases where it contains a
descri"tio "ersonae such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused.; The descri"tion must be sufficient
to indicate clearly the "ro"er "erson u"on whom the
warrant is to be ser#ed.
E. /)4 /).4 /).4 /).4 /). 8 The affida#it and the search
warrant stated that ;John )oe has illegally in his
"ossession in the building occu"ied by him& and which is
under his control& namely& in the building numbered @9>
Calle (rzobis"o& City of Manila& Phili""ine /slands& certain
de#ices and effects used in #iolation of the *ambling
$aw.; eld: That the "olice could identity John )oe as V
without difficulty& and that the search warrant is #alid.
People vs Panto)a [G.R. No. *+$,-'!. %cto&er $$,
$'.,.(
Facts:
( grou" of se#en young men serenaded the
house& where 5stelita 5rotes li#ed. /n#ited to come u"&
the young men acce"ted the in#itation. 3hen 3enceslao
ernandez was seated beside 5stelita& an unin#ited
Phili""ine (rmy -ergeant& *etulio Panto.a& in T%shirt&
came u" and asked ernandez to allow him to sit beside
5stelita& but ernandez refused the re'uest. Panto.a said
nothing and showed no sign of anger. owe#er& he
immediately left and went to his cam" about half a
kilometer distant& "ut on his fatigue uniform& got a rifle&
went back to the house and stationed himself on the
stairway.
The serenaders left the house to go to and
serenade another house in the 2orthern "art of the
<arrio. Panto.a followed the grou". Panto.a suddenly
shouted ;(no yanI (no yanI;. Turning their heads back
they saw Panto.a raise the garand rifle and aim at them.
<efore any of them could run away& Panto.a fired two
shots in ra"id succession. The first shot hit (ngel
Marasigan who instantly fell on his back. The second
shot hit 3enceslao ernandez who fell down. The other
serenaders scam"ered away for safety. Panto.a& who had
walked nearer& then fired one more shot at the "rostrate
body of Marasigan and four more shots at the "rostrate
body of ernandez.
The lower court found the defendant guilty of
double murder.
/ssues: 3hat 'ualifying circumstances are "resent in this
caseI
3hat mitigating and aggra#ating circumstances
are "resentI
eld:
/uali01ing circumstances:
The 'ualifying circumstance of e#ident
"remeditation can not be considered where the
defendant had only about one%half hour to allow his
conscience to o#ercome the resolution of his will had he
desired to hearken to its warning.
The 'ualifying circumstance of treachery is
"resent where the defendant followed the serenaders as
they walked& made no indication that he would shoot& and
then suddenly fired from behind two shots in ra"id
succession at the two #ictims from a distance of about
fi#e meters.
Aggravating circumstances:
The mere fact that the defendant& a sergeant in
the Phili""ine (rmy& was in fatigue uniform and had an
army rifle at the time of the killing is not sufficient to
establish that he misused his "ublic "osition in the
commission of the crime.
The mere fact that the defendant fired se#eral
shots more at the "rostrate bodies of the deceased is not
sufficient to establish the aggra#ating circumstance of
ignominy.
2itigating circumstances:
The mitigating circumstance of #oluntary surrender
is "resent where the defendant& an army officer&
immediately after the commission of the murders&
#oluntarily surrendered to his detachment cam"
commander to whom he also surrendered his garand
rifle.
People vs 3ral [G.R. No. *+!","$. 2arch -, $'-4.(
Facts:
<rigido (lberto& a former detention "risoner went
to <arrio Camongo& )umalinao where his father resided.
+n July =@& @E??& he intended to go to his residence at
<arrio 6""er $amari& <uug but night o#ertook him in the
town. e decided to slee" in the <uug munici"al building
where there would be more security. 6"on arri#al in the
munici"al building at he saw Policeman 6ral Cwith whom
he was already ac'uaintedG inside the .ail. 6ral was
bo,ing the detention "risoner& Feli, 2a"ola. (s a
conse'uence of the fistic blows& 2a"ola colla"sed on the
floor. 6ral& the tormentor& ste""ed on his "rostrate body.
6ral went out of the cell. (fter a short inter#al& he
returned with a bottle. e "oured its contents on 2a"olaJs
recumbent body. Then& he ignited it with a match and left
the cell. 2a"ola screamed in agony. e shouted for hel".
2obody came to succor him.
Much "erturbed by the barbarity which he had .ust seen&
(lberto left the munici"al building. <efore his de"arture&
6ral cautioned him: ;7ou better kee" 'uiet of what / ha#e
done;. 2a"ola died.
/ssues: 3K2 the accused took ad#antage of his "ublic
"osition in committing the crime L aggra#ating
circumstanceI
3K2 the accused is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance that offender had no intention to
commit so gra#e a wrong as that committedI
eld:
7es. e could not ha#e maltreated 2a"ola if he
was not a "oliceman on guard duty. <ecause of his
"osition& he had access to the cell where 2a"ola was
confined The "risoner was under his custody. ;The
"oliceman& who taking ad#antage of his "ublic "osition
maltreats a "ri#ate citizen& merits no .udicial leniency. The
methods sanctioned by medie#al "ractice are surely not
a""ro"riate for an enlightened democratic ci#ilization.
3hile the law "rotects the "olice officer in the "ro"er
discharge of his duties& it must at the same time .ust as
effecti#ely "rotect the indi#idual from the abuse of the
"olice.;
7es. /t is manifest from the "ro#en facts that
a""ellant 6ral had no intent to kill 2a"ola. is design
was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken
condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the
detention cell. 3hen 6ral realized the fearful
conse'uences of his felonious act& he allowed 2a"ola to
secure medical treatment at the munici"al dis"ensary.
People vs Clementer [G.R. No. *+!!4'". August !",
$'-4.(
Facts:
Concordio -araos& his wife& )almacia Melgar& their
eight children and a ne"hew were resting in their house.
The children were fast aslee". (t that late hour& the
s"ouses were still awake. They heard the barking of their
dog. -araos "ee"ed through a horizontal slit in the wall of
his house. e saw eight "ersons in the yard. e
recognized among them the fi#e Clementer brothers
named Piding& Tiago& Carlito& 5sing& and )oming. e had
known them for fi#e years. They used to be his friends.
-araos heard Federico shouting: ;(ll of you come down&
we will not harm you. )o not be afraid& this is the
authority. 7ou are under arrest. There is a warrant of
arrest for you.; -araos in'uired: ;3ho are you; and
Federico answered: ;This is 2oning;. Federico& who
"retended to be 2oning& a "oliceman& urged -araos to
lea#e his house by assuring him: ;)o not be afraid& this is
2oning. This is the authority. 3e will not harm you.;
-araos countered: ;2oning& come near& let us talk as we
ha#e no fault.; /rritated by -araosJ answers& Federico
ga#e him an ultimatum: ;7ou talk too much. Come down
if you do not want to die.;
3hen -araos could not be "ersuaded to go down&
Federico uttered a last ominous threat: ;-o& you will not
come down. /Jll shoot you;. -uiting his action to his threat&
Federico fired at the "lace in the house where he sensed
that -araos was stationed& .udging from the direction
where his #oice originated. Federico was armed with a
long gun.
(t that .uncture& -araosJ wife& )almacia Melgar& in
obedience to an im"ulse& suggested to him to accede to
the re'uest of the accused. -he thought that she could
mediate and "acify the malefactors. Thereu"on& she went
down. -he was immediately seized by 5liseo Clementer.
5liseo dragged her to the nearby dinog treewhere
-araosJ carabao was tethered& tore her blouse so that
she was naked abo#e the waist and tied her hands
behind her back with the ro"e of the carabao. Then
5liseo shot her at the back. (fter his wife was shot&
-araos left the "lace where he was "ee"ing. Federico
fired at him C-araosG& hitting him. -araos took the gun of
his brother and fired back at Federico but missed him.
FedericoJs com"anions ran away. (fter the malefactors
had left& -araoJs went down and found his half%naked
wife dead on the ground.
/ssue: 3K2 the accused is guilty of murderI
eld:
7es. The 'ualifying circumstance of abuse of
su"eriority is "resent. -ince the thirty%fi#e%year old 5liseo
Clementer was armed and )almacia Melgar was
unarmed and she guilelessly a""roached the grou" of
eight "ersons& without the least inkling that any harm
would befall her& abuse of su"eriority was em"loyed in
li'uidating her. -he was not able to offer any resistance.
/n a sense& there was treachery because she was first
reduced to hel"lessness before she was shot C6. -. #s.
5licanal& =0 Phil. 91E& 9@H4 6. -. #s. CaMete& >> Phil.
>AH& >H1G. There was also disregard of se, because her
blouse was needlessly remo#ed& a circumstance that is
absorbed in treachery CPeo"le #s. Mangsant& ?0 Phil.
0>H4 Peo"le #s. $imaco& CHH Phil. =0G. Treachery and
nocturnity are absorbed in abuse of su"eriority.
[G.R. No. *+,$",. 2arch -, $'-4.(
P5%P*5 vs. RA2%*5T5
FACT6:
/n the e#ening of June 9>& @E?@ there was a
gathering in the house of the s"ouses& Mariano !amolete
and Cali,ta !abot& located at <arrio Paratong& -ta.
Catalina& /locos -ur. ( game of cards known as briska
was being "layed near the door of the sala. (mong the
"layers were !ayray and !efuerzo. The stakes were
"ieces of candy called lemon candies or #icks dro"s.
(t about ten oJclock& Nuirino !amolete& a twenty%four%
year old farmer& came to the house& entered the sala
were the game was being "layed and asked for candy.
!efuerzo and !ayray ga#e him candy. (fter eating it& he
left the house. (bout a minute later& he returned&
accom"anied by (costa and !abara. 5ach of them was
armed with a gun. Nuirino !amolete stood at the door&
the only ingress and egress of the house. <ehind him
were his minions& (costa and !abara. They "ointed their
wea"ons at the astounded and tra""ed "ersons "laying
briska.
Nuirino !amolete& addressing to !ayray& said:
;7ou should stand and / will shoot you.; Cali,ta !abot
said: ;+h& my son& "lease donJt do that;. ( commotion
ensued. The guests inside the sala shouted
simultaneously. They dis"ersed& scurried away and tried
to hide or flee. Nuirino !amolete instructed !abara and
(costa to go down and watch for those "ersons who
were going to .um" out of the house. Nuirino shot
!efuerzo while the latter was .um"ing through the
window into the batalan or "orch. e shot Mariano
!amolete who was in the batalan. e also shot !ayray
downstairs. !efuerzo and Mariano !amolete died on that
same night. !ayray was wounded.
76635:
3hether the killing of !efuerzo was treacherous
3hether the killing of Mariano !amolete was treacherous
85*9:
7es& there was treachery in the killing of !efuerzo.
(""ellant Nuirino !amolete first came to the house
unarmed and ostensibly with "acific intentions. (s it
turned out& his "ur"ose was to reconnoiter or to case the
house and ascertain whether the intended #ictims were
"resent and unarmed. That conduct of Nuirino !amolete
amounted to ;trickery or deceit;. e dissembled and
camouflaged his murderous intention by gi#ing the
inmates of the house the im"ression that he would not do
them any harm. a#ing satisfied himself that the "lace
and time were Pro"itious for the e,ecution of his
diabolical "lan& he left the house and fetched his
confederates& (costa and !abara. (fter e'ui""ing
themsel#es with deadly wea"ons& they entered the house
to "ut into effect their felonious design. They sur"rised
the "ersons inside the house "articularly !efuerzo.
!amolete strategically stationed himself near the door&
;the only e,it in the house;.
!efuerzo must ha#e instincti#ely felt that he was
one of the ob.ects of Nuirino !amoleteJs #indicti#e
hostility in #iew of the "rior incident regarding !agil&
NuirinoJs friend. /nasmuch as !efuerzo was unarmed and
utterly defenseless& he tried to esca"e through the
window. Nuirino !amolete shot him in that situation.
!efuerzo fell into the batalan with three serious gunshot
wounds of entry on his back. Treachery Cale#osiaG was
manifest in that manner of assault because it insured the
killing without any risk to the assailant. (n attack made
on a "erson who was running away and who was
com"letely defenseless was held to be treacherous.
3here the attack was made with firearms and the #ictims
were unarmed and with no means of defense or esca"e
because they were tra""ed inside a house& the assault in
that situation was held to be treacherous.
(s to the cul"ability of a""ellant Nuirino !amolete
for the death of Mariano !amolete& the Court is not
con#inced that the killing was attended with treachery. (s
already noted& although. the "rosecution had established
Nuirino !amoleteJs res"onsibility for the killing of Mariano
!amolete& it failed to establish clearly the circumstances
surrounding the killing. Conse'uently& the killing of
Mariano !amolete should be characterized as homicide
aggra#ated by dwelling. e was killed in his own house
without ha#ing gi#en any "ro#ocations. <ut dwelling is
not aggra#ating in the killing of !efuerzo since he was a
mere #isitor in Mariano !amoleteJs house.
[G.R. No. *+!,.4. :ul1 #, $'-#.(
P5%P*5 vs. ;A3T76TA
FACT6:
(ccused *eorge )aeng& !olando Castillo&
Conrado <autista& *erardo (buhin& who were ser#ing
sentence by #irtue of final .udgment in the 2ew <ilibid
Prison& were charged with murder for inflicting multi"le
stab wounds u"on and killing another con#icted "risoner
<asilio <eltran while the latter was in the "rocess of
ser#ing the accused breakfast. (fter trial& accused were
found guilty as charged and were each sentenced to
suffer the "enalty of death. (ccused set u" the defense
of alibi and claimed that their written statements admitting
the crime were e,tracted from them by force and
intimidation. +n mandatory re#iew& the -u"reme Court
affirmed the .udgment of the trial court.
76635:
3hether the offense when committed by the accused
was attended by the 'ualifying circumstance of treachery
and generic aggra#ating circumstances of e#ident
"remeditation and ob#ious ungratefulness
85*9:
The trial court correctly considered the 'ualifying
circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime
of murder. /t was conclusi#ely "ro#en that the accused in
a sudden& concerted and un"ro#oked act& all of them
being armed with im"ro#ised deadly wea"ons& stabbed
the #ictim to death after "ushing their cell door o"en&
threatening and throwing off%guard Miranda when the
#ictim who was holding in both hands the bread and
coffee intended for the breakfast of the assailants was
not in a "osition to defend himself from the une,"ected
assault.
(s to the e,istence of e#ident "remeditation& it
was established by the following circumstances: C@G the
sudden concerted attack& "er"etrated and calculated to
throw off%guard the intended #ictim as he was in the act
of gi#ing food to the assailants& which attack necessarily
must ha#e been "lanned4 C9G that all of the accused were
armed with im"ro#ised deadly wea"ons which they were
not su""osed to "ossess and which they must ha#e
secretly "re"ared for a long time for committing the
crime4 and C=G the admission on the "art of the accused
in their sworn statements that they killed the #ictim by
;attacking first; because they had heard that the
members of the ri#al gang would li'uidate them& leading
to the conclusion that the accused must ha#e "lanned
how to counteract the su""osed attack of the ri#al gang
by literally beating the latter to the draw.
The aggra#ating circumstance of ob#ious
ungratefulness was "resent as the #ictim was suddenly
attacked while in the act of gi#ing the assailants their
bread and coffee for breakfast. /nstead of being grateful
to the #ictim& at least by doing him no harm& they took
ad#antage of his hel"lessness when his two arms were
used for carrying their food& thus "re#enting him from
defending himself from the sudden attack.
[G.R. No. *+$#!",. 2a1 ', $'.4.(
P5%P*5 vs. ;%<*56
FACT6:
5arly in the morning of 2o#ember 9H& @E0E& at
about 0:11 oJclock in the morning& while his wife was
breast%feeding one of their children& 5miniano <ayo
decided to start the day and went down the house to
"re"are their breakfast. (s he o"ened the door& howe#er&
he was sur"rised to see a man& later identified as
Felizardo -oria& menacingly standing and all set to attack
him& and& .ust as 'uickly as he could yell a warning to his
wife that there was an intruder in their abode& the man
broke through their door& grabbed and wrestled with
<ayo. +n seeing the scuffle& his wife <rigida ran to the
rescue of her husband. -he tried to break the stranger
away from <ayo& but before she could be of any effecti#e
hel"& the man C-oriaG shouted for his com"anions& the
herein two a""ellants& who came rushing to the house.
Pio Montes was armed with a knife& !oberto <oyles with
a gun. Prom"tly& they .oined the fray& and with their 'uarry
thus greatly outnumbered& Pio Montes stabbed 5miniano
<ayo in the neck.
/n "anic& fear and terror& <rigida blindly sought the
window and .um"ed& the fall s"raining her waist and
breaking her legs. /mmediately& the stranger who first
confronted her husband ran down the house& grabbed
and dragged her back u"stairs where then the grou"
demanded money from her. -he o"ened a trunk and got
the em"ty tin can of Blim milk in which she and her
husband ke"t their sa#ings of about P@11.11 and handed
o#er the contents to Pio Montes.
The three& howe#er& did not content themsel#es
with the money. 5,hibiting one of the ugliest and most
re#olting criminal "er#ersity known to man& the trio
forcibly brought <rigida near where her dead husband lay
bathed in blood& and& com"letely insensiti#e to the
"ainful& terrified anguish of the .ust%widowed mother& they
forced her to lie beside the cor"se and there took turns
ra"ing her. (fter e#eryone had 'uenched his lustful thirst&
they tied her hands behind her back and left.
(s soon as her attackers had de"arted& <rigida
worked to free herself from the ro"es. -he then woke her
?%year old son and sent him out to ask for hel" from their
neighbors. 6"on their arrests& both a""ellants readily
confessed to the crime. The third man in the grou"
Felizardo -oria& was still at large when this case was
filed.
76635:
3hether ca"ital "unishment should be im"osed on them
85*9:
7es. /n summary& then& the crime committed was
robbery with homicide& aggra#ated by three C=G
circumstances& namely& dwelling& use of su"erior force
and habituality. +nly one mitigating circumstance&
#oluntary "lea of guilty& is legally assessible in a""ellantsJ
fa#or. There is absolutely neither basis nor .ustice for the
-C to e,tend unto them the e,tenuating circumstance of
lack of intent to commit so gra#e a wrong& the records of
this case ha#ing conclusi#ely demonstrated the contrary.
/t may be said& though& that e#en if the -C were to credit
the last mentioned circumstance in fa#or of the herein
accused& they still would ha#e to be meted the death
"enalty since the aggra#ating circumstances would still
be one more than the mitigating circumstances 8 a
condition which under our "enal system makes
mandatory the im"osition of the greater "enalty& death.
[G.R. No. *+!.4$. August ', $'-#.(
P5%P*5 vs. 3N9%NG
FACT6:
(ccused a""ellant -ulayman 6ndong "leaded not
guilty to the charge of murder and double frustrated
murder. (fter the "rosecution was through with its
e#idence& but before resting its case& accused through
counsel& asked the court to allow him to withdraw his
former "lea of ;not guilty; to that of ;guilty.; 6"on
rearrangement under the same information& he "leaded:
;/ am guilty& sir& because / was .ust taking re#enge of the
death of my uncle.; /nstead of im"osing u"on accused
the corres"onding "enalty for the crime charged& the
Court "roceeded to recei#e e#idence on the guilt of the
accused& his "artici"ation in the commission of the crime
and the circumstances that would "ossibly aggra#ate or
mitigate his guilt. (fter all the witnesses for the
"rosecution has testified& accused a""ellant took the
witness stand& admitted his "artici"ation in& narrated the
circumstance leading to the commission of& and re#ealed
his moti#e for committing& the crime. Thereafter& the Court
rendered .udgment con#icting accused and im"osing the
su"reme "enalty of death.
76635:
3hether the court erred in considering the aggra#ating
circumstances of nighttime& abuse of su"erior strength&
treachery
85*9:
2ighttime "er se is not an aggra#ating
circumstance. To be an aggra#ating circumstance& the
accused must ha#e "lanned and sought darkness to
"re#ent him from being recognized. /n the "resent case
there is nothing in the records to show that the accused%
a""ellant "ur"osely "lanned and sought nighttime to
"re#ent him from being recognized. ere the darkness of
the night was merely incidental. <ut e#en granting that
the aggra#ating circumstance of nocturnity attended the
commission of the crime& the same was deemed
absorbed in the treachery that actually attended the
commission of the crime. /f nighttime was absorbed in
treachery& then it should not ha#e been considered
se"arately as such circumstance forms "art of the
"eculiar treacherous means and manner ado"ted to
insure the e,ecution of the crime.
3ith res"ect to the aggra#ating circumstance of
abuse of su"erior strength found by the lower court& 3e
belie#e that like nighttime it should not ha#e been
considered se"arately. /t is a well established doctrine
that when treachery is already taken into account as a
'ualifying circumstance in murder& it is im"ro"er to
consider the generic aggra#ating circumstance of abuse
of su"erior strength& since the latter is necessarily
included in the former and that it cannot be se"arately
and inde"endently considered from the other. This
circumstance therefore should not be a""reciated against
accused%a""ellant. ( "lea of ;guilty; made after the
"rosecution has "resented its witnesses cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance. $ack of
instruction and education should be considered as a
mitigating circumstance in fa#or of the accused where the
records show that the latter is ignorant and unschooled.
There can be no doubt that treachery attended the
commission of the crime& for the offenders here ha#e
a#ailed themsel#es of the means to insure the e,ecution
of the crime without risk to themsel#es arising from the
defense that may come from the #ictims. The records
show that $aguia and his com"anions fired at the house
of the #ictim without warning and without hesitation.
owe#er& while the "rosecution was able to "ro#e
treachery& it was not able to "ro#e e#ident "remeditation
on the "art of the accused%a""ellant. Precisely accused%
a""ellant knew of the "lan only when his elder brother
)atu $aguia 6ndong told him of the matter. 5#ident
"remeditation obtains where the accused had sufficient
time to reflect on his determination to commit the crime.
/n the case before 6s& accused%a""ellant did not know
until he was ordered by $aguia 6ndong to go with him to
the house of (wal Magco. e did not ha#e sufficient time
to reflect on what he was to do.
/t results that only the 'ualifying circumstance of
treachery was "ro#en& which absorbs nocturnity. The
aggra#ating circumstance of dwelling is offset by the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and
education. /nasmuch as the e#idence shows that two
carbines were used in the killing of the #ictim and in
in.uring the other two #ictims& and there were se#eral
shots fired& the "ro#en crimes of murder and frustrated
murder cannot be considered as com"le, crimes but are
se"arate and distinct from each other. The lower courtJs
decision is modified and the death "enalty im"osed on
a""ellant -ulayman 6ndong for the killing of (wal Magco
is reduced to reclusion "er"etua.
[G.R. No. *+,,$. :ul1 !$, $'-4.(
P5%P*5 vs. *3NA
FACT6:
/n this case& the Court of First /nstance of Nuezon&
$ucena City <ranch& found -il#erio $una guilty of robbery
in band with homicide& sentencing him to death and
ordering him to indemnify the heirs of (lfredo (dal. The
same court in a related case& also con#icted $una of
robbery in band with frustrated homicide& sentenced him
to an indeterminate "enalty of si,teen C@?G years& fi#e C0G
months and ele#en C@@G days to se#enteen C@AG years
and four C>G months of reclusion tem"oral and ordered
him to indemnify 5duardo (dal.
76635:
3hether the death "enalty was "ro"erly im"osed
85*9:
7es. !obbery with homicide is "unished with
reclusion "er"etua to death. There being three
aggra#ating circumstances and no mitigating
circumstance& the death "enalty was "ro"erly im"osed
$ack of instruction cannot be considered
mitigating. $una is not illiterate. e finished *rade two.
The lower court obser#ed ;that he usually answered in
Tagalog after the 'uestion in 5nglish; was "ro"ounded.
The trial court did not err in not gi#ing him the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction
The trial court correctly a""reciated the
aggra#ating circumstances of nocturnity and treachery.
6n'uestionably& nighttime facilitated the consummation of
robbery with homecide. The killing of a robbery #ictim
while bound is regarded as treacherous. The lower court
did not err in considering recidi#ism as aggra#ating
although it was not alleged in the information. *enerally&
recidi#ism should be alleged in the information. /f not
alleged& it cannot be "ro#en o#er the ob.ection of the
accused. owe#er& in this case& $una& by his own
admission in his confession and on the witness stand&
"ro#ed that he is a recidi#ist. (t the time he was tried in
this case& he had been "re#iously con#icted by final
.udgment of robbery. e had ser#ed sentence for it.
The trial court regarded cruelty as aggra#ating. /t
reasoned out that to drown in the sea (lfredo (dal after
he was stabbed while bound& was a merciless and
unnecessary act. Cruelty has a s"ecial signification in
"enal law. There is cruelty CensanamientoG when the
wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately
augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary in its
commission or by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the #ictimJs suffering or outraging or scoffing at his
"erson or cor"se.
/n order that cruelty or #indicti#eness may be
a""reciated& the e#idence should show that the sadistic
cul"rit& for his "leasure and satisfaction& caused the
#ictim to suffer slowly and gradually and inflicted on him
unnecessary moral and "hysical "ain. 6sing that
criterion& it cannot be said that $una and his com"anion
acted with cruelty within the meaning of article.
The trial court erred in categorizing cons"iracy as
an aggra#ating circumstance. Price& "romise or reward
would be aggra#ating in cases of this character but that
circumstances was not alleged in the information. 2o
e#idence was introduced to show that Pablo (dal made
any "romise or "aid any "rice or reward to $una for the
commission of the robbery with homicide. /t may be
inferred from the e#idence that robbery was resorted to
not only to cause damage but so that $una could
com"ensate himself out of the s"oils of the robbery. /t
could be that relationshi" by affinity was in itself a strong
inducement to $una to act as PabloJs tool in "unishing
5duardo (dal and (lfredo (dal for ha#ing su""osedly
o#erreached Pablo in the "artition of the inheritance.
$una said that he "itied his 6ncle Pablo because he was
aggrie#ed in the "artition.
The -olicitor *eneral obser#es that the use of the
motorboat Cregarded as a motor #ehicleG and des"oblado
should be considered aggra#ating. Those circumstances
were not taken into account by the trial court. 5#en
without taking into account those aggra#ating
circumstances& the ma,imum "enalty would ha#e to be
im"osed on $una since no mitigating circumstance could
be a""reciated in his fa#or. is guilt was established
beyond reasonable doubt.
[G.R. No. *+!!4!$. :une ,, $',!.(
P5%P*5 vs. 9R7*%N
FACT6:
/t was ValentineJs )ay on February @>& @E?A. (t
noon of that day& !afaelito 2eri& Jr. called u" his friend&
5sterlita Paca& by tele"hone in#iting her to a dinner in the
e#ening of that day. The girl acce"ted. +n the way& the
car sto""ed& 2eri "arking said car at the right side of the
road& with both windows thereof closed.
The two accused& together with ci#ilians Matulac
and /ra'ue& armed with a carbine for each of them were
on their barracks& following the road to barrio ("as. /t was
showering a little bit. They saw a small "ainted white
Volkswagen car which& as abo#e%stated& was "arked by
the side of the road. )rilon went to the left side of the car
and "ee"ed at the occu"ants inside said car& with
$obaton close behind him. Matulac "roceeded to the
other side of the car& then "ee"ed at the right side
thereof& while /ra'ue was at his back.
3hile Paca and 2eri were talking inside the
"arked car for about fi#e minutes& shadows of men
suddenly a""eared. (ccording to the girl& she noticed one
at her side& which was the right side of the car& and two or
more at the side of 2eri& or left side of the car. -he got
scared and seemed to hear 2eri say ;Just take my
money.; but no re"ly was made from the men. (s 2eri
switched on the ignition key and the car started to mo#e
forward towards the city& shots were fired at them& and
although the shots hit 2eri& as blood was seen by her on
his face& the car continued to mo#e& but suddenly it
swer#ed to the right side of the road and down towards
the cornfield. 3hen the car sto""ed& she tried to hel"
2eri out of the car but the latter wa#ed her away. -he got
out of the car and& thinking that the men were following
them. (gain& she tried to hel" 2eri but he wa#ed her
away. -o& she ran like mad for the "ur"ose of seeking
hel".
)es"ite the finding of the trial court that it is was
)rilon alone who fired all the shots during the incident in
'uestion& it "ronounced $obaton guilty as charged on the
theory that he and )rilon cons"ired and acted in common
accord as to render him liable for the acts of the latter.
76635:
3hether there was cons"iracy
85*9:
2o. The records are bereft of any fact or
circumstance to establish the e,istence of a cons"iracy.
3hile it is true that direct "roof is not essential to "ro#e
cons"iracy& for it may be established by facts and
circumstances from which may logically be inferred the
e,istence of a common design among the accused to
commit the crime charged& ne#ertheless& the same
degree of "roof necessary to establish the crime is
re'uired to su""ort a finding of the "resence of a criminal
cons"iracy& which is& "roof beyond reasonable doubt.
The mere "resence of a""ellant at the scene when the
crime was "er"etrated by )rilon is not by itself indicati#e
of the e,istence of cons"iracy between them.
/n this case at bar& there is direct "roof of an
agreement among the accused and their two ci#ilian
com"anions to ogle and gawk at the cou"les dating at
<ritania ills4 but there is not a shred of e#idence to
.ustify the inference that they had any "re%concei#ed "lan
to shoot anyone that night. /t being "atent that no
cons"iracy to kill e,isted between the actual assailant
and the a""ellant& the latter cannot be held liable for the
criminal act of the former. The .udgment is hereby
modified& and a""ellant 2icolas $obaton ac'uitted of the
crime charged.
[G.R. No. *+#"-.. :anuar1 -, $',!.(
P5%P*5 vs. ;3T*5R
FACT6:
5melita Pasco& the housemaid of the #ictim&
testified that& at about @@:=1 ".m. or so of (ugust A& @EA0&
her mistress *ina <arrios came home with the accused%
a""ellant. (s soon as she o"ened the door for them& the
#ictim and accused%a""ellant immediately entered the
#ictimJs bedroom. -hortly thereafter& the #ictim left her
bedroom holding an /) card and a "iece of "a"er& and on
the "iece of "a"er& the #ictim "ur"ortedly wrote the
following words: M/C(5$ J. <6T$5!& >>909%H0@E 6--
(2C+CB. -aid words were co"ied from the /) Card.
Pasco testified that the #ictim said she was
co"ying the name of the accused because she knew he
would not be going back to her. Then she rushed back to
her bedroom after instructing Pasco to wake her u" the
following morning. 9 <efore retiring& howe#er& the #ictimJs
friend& !osemarie Juarez& came to the formerJs house
and after ha#ing a small con#ersation& also left.
The following day& (ugust H& @EA0& at about >:11
a.m.& Pasco rose to wake her mistress as instructed. -he
knocked at the door. -he found that the #ictim was lying
on her bed& facing downward& naked u" to the waist& with
legs s"read a"art& with a broken figurine beside her
head. /mmediately& Pasco called the landlord and they
called the authorities.
766356:
3hether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused
guilty of the crime of murder 'ualified by abuse of
su"erior strength& with aggra#ating circumstances of
treachery and scoffing at the cor"se of the #ictim
85*9:
The -C held that there was an abuse of su"erior
strength attending the commission of the crime. /t is not
only the notorious ad#antage of height that the accused
had o#er his ha"less #ictim& he being ? feet tall and
weighing @00 lbs. while the girl was only > ft. @@ inches
tall& but also his strength which he wielded in striking her
with the figurine on the head and in sho#ing her head and
"ressing her mouth and nose against the bed mattress&
which "ressure must ha#e been #ery strong and "owerful
to suffocate her to death and without risk to himself in any
manner or mode whatsoe#er that she may ha#e taken or
defend herself or retaliate since she was already struck
and hel"less on the bed& that con#inced 6s to find and
rule that the crime committed is murder with the
'ualifying circumstance of abuse of su"erior strength.
The e#idence on record. howe#er& is not sufficient
to show clearly and "ro#e distinctly that treachery
attended the commission of the crime since there was no
eyewitness account of the killing. The e,tra.udicial
confession of the accused merely stated& thus: ;/ thought
she was going to do something dangerous to me so /
grabbed her& and we started wrestling on the bed. -he
grabbed me by the throat and / "icked u" a statue of
Jesus Christ that was sitting on the bedside stand and /
hit her in the head. -he fell flat on her face.; (lthough the
figurine was found broken beside her head& the medical
re"ort& howe#er& do not show any in.ury or fracture of the
skull and no sign of intracranial hemorrhage.
The -C& howe#er& sustained the finding of the
lower court that the aggra#ating circumstance of
outraging or scoffing at the cor"se of the deceased
a""lies against the accused since it is established that he
mocked or outraged at the "erson or cor"se of his #ictim
by ha#ing an anal intercourse with her after she was
already dead.
/t is true as maintained by the defense that the
aggra#ating circumstance of outraging at the cor"se of
the #ictim is not alleged in the information and that the
lower court found it had been "ro#ed but its contention
that the said aggra#ating circumstance should not ha#e
been a""reciated against the accused is without merit.
(nd this is so because the rule is that a generic
aggra#ating circumstance not alleged in the information
may be "ro#en during the trial o#er the ob.ection of the
defense and may be a""reciated in im"osing the "enalty.
(ggra#ating circumstances not alleged in the information
but "ro#en during the trial ser#e only to aid the court in
fi,ing the limits of the "enalty but do not change the
character of the offense.
[G.R. Nos. *+4-$!.+!'. :ul1 #, $',!.(
P5%P*5 vs. 2ANA*ANG
FACT6:
/n the late afternoon of (ugust @@& @EAA& four C>G
"ersons were found dead by "olice in#estigators in the
house at 2o. @9? -an Francisco -t.& Plain#iew&
Mandaluyong& Metro Manila. The body of Maria $ourdes
-hih was in her bedroom& naked from the waist down.
The bodies of !osita -hih Cse,agenarianG and Joy
(ngeli'ue -hih& a fi#e%year old child& were found in the
ad.oining room4 while that of ilda Pomida& housemaid&
was found in her 'uarters. (ll four were #ictims of
stabbing.
!omeo Manalang was brought to the +ffice of
Ca"tain PeMa where he e,ecuted a si,%"age e,tra.udicial
confession narrating in detail how and why he killed his
four #ictims. The e,tra.udicial confession was followed by
the reenactment of the crimes during which the accused
narrated the gruesome details of his misdeed. This was
later affirmed in his #oluntary "lea of guilty& made with the
assistance of counsel de oficio& followed by the taking of
e#idence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
circumstances surrounding the killings and the authorshi"
thereof.
/n the four informations charging the accused of
murder& treachery& e#ident "remeditation and dwelling
were uniformly alleged. They were all found by the trial
court to ha#e been established beyond doubt.
76635:
3hether the court "ro"erly considered the aggra#ating
circumstances
85*9:
The -C held that there was treachery. !osita was
stabbed suddenly and une,"ectedly from behind as she
was mo#ing from the accused after a brief con#ersation
with the later and was doubt to go the bathroom. Maria
$ourdes -hih was similarly stabbed by the accused after
hulling her into com"lacency by masking his e#il design
as he o"ened the gate for her& hiding the murder wea"on
behind his back so that his intended #ictim would not
sus"ect his e#il intent. The fi#e%year old child was
stabbed by the accused after "utting her on bed.
owe#er& the attack on ilda& the maid was
un"lanned. The accused instincti#ely stabbed her as he
was about to lea#e the room of his first #ictim C!ositaG&
when ilda suddenly a""eared at the door and shouted
;saklolo&; which im"elled the accused to strike her at that
#ery instance to kee" her silent. The -C held that there
was no treachery in the killing of ilda..
)welling was correctly considered by the trial court
as an aggra#ating circumstance inasmuch as the killing
were "er"etrated without "ro#ocation in the sanctity of
the home of the house #ictims. The aggra#ating
circumstance of e#ident "remeditation was "resent in the
killing of !osita -hih and Maria $ourdes -hih. (s
admitted by the accused& he went to the -hih house
"recisely to kill !osita C$olaG and Maria $ourdes
CMarilouG.
Plea of guilty should howe#er be a""reciated in all
the foregoing crimes as a mitigating circumstance. The
-C affirmed the decision of the trial court sentencing
a""ellant Manalang to death for each of the murders of
!osita -hih and Maria $ourdes -hih. For the killing of Joy
(ngeli'ue -hih& we find the a""ellant guilty of murder&
with dwelling as an aggra#ating circumstance offset by
his "lea of guilty& and sentence him to suffer the "enalty
of reclusion "er"etua. For the killing of ilda Pomida& we
find the a""ellant guilty only of homicide& attended by the
aggra#ating circumstance of dwelling which is offset by
his "lea of guilty& and sentence him to twel#e years of
"rision mayor as minimum to se#enteen years and four
months of reclusion tem"oral as ma,imum.
[G.R. No. *+!.'4$. :une ', $',4.(
P5%P*5 vs. 6A<*AN
FACT6:
5utro"ia was ra"ed by the a""ellant !afael
-aylan. (""ellant accom"lished this by "lacing his right
arm around the neck of 5utro"ia with the dagger "ointed
at her left breast. e then dragged 5utro"ia at some
distance. 3hen they reached the .unction of the trail for
men and a trail for carabaos& he ordered e#erybody to
sto" and told the children accom"anying C2ilsonita and
!udy *onzalesG to stay behind and threatened to kill
them if they "ersisted in following them. Thereafter&
a""ellant again dragged 5utro"ia by her hand and
brought her towards a creek near a coconut tree which
was about fi#e meters away from where 2ilsonita and
!udy *onzales were. The a""ellant then had se,ual
intercourse with her 0 times in 0 different "ositions.
76635:
3hether there were the aggra#ating circumstances of
abuse of su"erior strength& nocturnity& des"oblado&
ignominy& and reiteracion.
85*9:
The trial court disregarded su"eriority because it
;is inherent in the crime of ra"e or is absorbed in the
element of force.; /t also did not consider nocturnity
;there being no e#idence that the accused "ur"osely
sought it to facilitate the commission of this ra"e.;
)es"oblado was "resent according to the trial
court because: ;The accused dragged the offended "arty&
at the "oint of a dagger& to the carabao trail& about @1
meters from the .unction& but >1 to 01 meters below to
better attain his "ur"ose without interference& and to
better secure himself from detection and "unishment.
5#en the .unction where the two children were left is
already >11 meters from the nearest house. 3hile there
maybe occasional "assersby& this does not destroy its
being an uninhabited "lace. 3e hold that the trial court
for the reasons stated correctly held that the crime was
committed in an uninhabited "lace.
The trial court held that there was ignominy
because the a""ellant used not only the missionary
"osition& i.e. male su"erior& female inferior& but also ;The
same "osition as dogs do; i.e.& entry from behind. The
a""ellant claims there was ignominy because ;The
studies of many e,"erts in the matter ha#e shown that
this J"ositionJ is not no#el and has re"eatedly and often
been resorted to by cou"les in the act of co"ulation.; This
may well be if the se,ual act is "erformed by consenting
"artners but not otherwise.
The trial court also held that ;there is no
reiteracion because one of the offenses& namely !obbery
in <and& for which the accused has been "enalized& was
committed after the commission of this ra"e case& and
the "enalty im"osed on the other offense of Frustrated
omicide& is lighter than the "enalty for ra"e.;
(lthough not alleged in the com"laint& the trial court
stated that the offense was aggra#ated by disregard of
rank because it was a fact known to the a""ellant that
Mrs. (gno was a school teacher. The a""ellant claims
that this circumstance cannot be assigned to him
because there was no deliberate intent to offend or insult
the rank of Mrs. (gno.
The .udgment of the trial court is in accordance
with the facts and the law but it cannot be affirmed
com"letely because of the lack of the necessary number
of #otes in the -C. The -C ruled that the .udgment under
re#iew is modified in the sense that the a""ellant shall
suffer the "enalty of reclusion "er"etua instead of death
[G.R. No. *+."!-". April $-, $',4.(
P5%P*5 vs. 9A2%
FACT6:
5#idence shows that a""ellant& 90 years old and a
tricycle dri#er in $aoag City& was in the bus terminal of
$aoag . ( short while thereafter& one of the buses of the
)e $eon Trans"ortation arri#ed from Manila and among
its "assengers was $ucretia ). Calina& 0> years old& who
returned to the Phili""ines after 99 years stay abroad.
(""ellant a""roached $ucretia and asked her where she
was going. -he answered that she was bound for
<angui. -ince there were no buses that early morning for
<angui which is about A0 kilometers from $aoag City&
a""ellant offered to bring her to the "lace for P@90.11.
3hen $ucretia agreed. /nstead of going to <angui&
a""ellant brought $ucretia to a #acant house at <arangay
2aldo& $aoag City. (""ellant in#ited $ucretia inside the
house to rest for a while. $ucretia hesitated but later
acceded when a""ellant "ut on the lights inside the
house.
3hen they were inside the house a""ellant made
lo#e to his lady "assenger who& at first& resisted but later
on succumbed and consented to ha#ing se,ual
intercourse with him. (fter satisfying his lust& he told her
to dress u" as they would "roceed to <angui. e then
went outside the house and after sometime returned
"assing through the kitchen door. 6"on seeing her still
standing by the door& a""ellant a""roached her and at
once strangled her to death with his bare hands. The
$aoag "olice& acting u"on a ti"& arrested a""ellant. e
admitted his guilt in an e,tra%.udicial confession.
/n this a""eal& the defense assailed the decision of
the lower court in that it erred C@G in finding that there was
e#ident "remeditation4 C9G in finding that the offense was
aggra#ated by nocturnity4 C=G in a""reciating treachery as
an aggra#ating circumstance4 C>G in not offsetting the
aggra#ating circumstance of treachery by the mitigating
circumstance of "lea of guilty4 C0G in not a""reciating the
mitigating circumstance of into,ication4 and& C?G in
im"osing the death "enalty.
76635:
3hether the court erred in "ro"erly considering the
aggra#ating circumstances
85*9:
The -C held that in the commission of the crime
the aggra#ating circumstance of e#ident "remeditation
was not "resent. The a""ellant thought of killing the
deceased only after succeeding in satisfying his lust u"on
her. /n fact& the a""ellant was waiting for her in his
tricycle for sometime& after the carnal act& but as the
deceased was not yet around& he returned to the house&
and meeting her at the door of the kitchen& he strangled
her. Thus& there does not seem to be sufficient time for
him to reflect on his e#il resolution.
The -C held that the aggra#ating circumstance of
nocturnity is absent in the case. For& nocturnity to be
a""reciated as an aggra#ating circumstance& it must be
"ur"osely and deliberately sought by the accused to
facilitate the commission of the crime. /n the case at bar&
the meeting of a""ellant and $ucretia was by chance
and& therefore& it cannot be said that he "ur"osely sought
nighttime to commit the offense. Their meeting was
accidental. <eing a tricycle dri#er& he was in the bus
terminal waiting for "assengers when he met the #ictim.
(""ellantJs contention that there was no treachery
is untenable. (fter satisfying his lust& no woman would
ha#e antici"ated that the man who took ad#antage of her
would thereafter suddenly kill her. Time and again&
Treachery is "resent in the commission of a crime when
e,ecuted suddenly and une,"ectedly e#en if made face
to face. owe#er& treachery in cases of robbery with
homicide is not a 'ualifying circumstance but only a
generic aggra#ating circumstance which may be offset by
a""ellantJs "lea of guilty.
Finally& a""ellantJs claim that he was drunk at the
time he e,ecuted the criminal act& is untenable. e failed
to establish by con#incing e#idence that his reason was
blurred to the e,tent that he was de"ri#ed of that degree
of control of himself. The fact that he was able to dri#e his
tricycle to the "lace where he brought his #ictim& made
lo#e to her following which he killed and dum"ed her into
a well and then dro#e his #ehicle back to $aoag City&
shows that he had com"lete control of his mental
faculties.
(rticle 9E>& "aragra"h @ of the !e#ised Penal
Code& "ro#ides for reclusion "er"etua to death as the
"enalty for the offense of robbery with homicide.
Considering the "resence of the aggra#ating
circumstance of treachery which is offset by the
mitigating circumstance of "lea of guilty& the correct
"enalty in the case at bar is reclusion "er"etua.
[G.R. No. #'. August ,, $'"'.(
3N7T59 6TAT56 vs. 2ANA*7N95
FACT6:
<etween 9 and = oJclock on the afternoon of the
@Eth of January& @E1E& while Juan /gual& a -"aniard& was
seated on a chair in the doorway of -ousaJs store in
Cotabato& Moro Pro#ince& he suddenly recei#ed a wound
on the head deli#ered from behind and inflicted with a
kris. !icardo )oroteo& a clerk in the said store& who was
standing behind the counter& u"on hearing the noise and
the cry of the wounded man& ran to his assistance and
found him lying on the ground.
Meanwhile the aggressor& the Moro Manalinde&
a""roached a Chinaman named Choa& who was "assing
along the street& and .ust as the latter was "utting down
his load in front of the door of a store and was about to
enter& attacked him with the same wea"on& inflicting a
se#ere wound in the left shoulder& on account of which he
fell to the ground. The Moro& who came from the
rancheria of )u"it and had entered the town carrying his
wea"on wra""ed u" in banana lea#es& in the meantime
esca"ed by running away from the town. <oth wounded
men& the Chinaman and the -"aniard& were taken to the
hos"ital& where the former died within an hour& the record
not stating the result of the wound inflicted on the
-"aniard Juan /gual.
3hen Manalinde was arrested he "leaded guilty
and confessed that he had "er"etrated the crime herein
mentioned& stating that his wife had died about one
hundred days before and that he had come from his
home in Catumaldu by order of the )atto !a.amudah
Mu"uck& who had directed him to go .uramentado in
Cotabato in order to kill somebody& because the said
Mu"uck had certain grie#ances to a#enge against a
lieutenant and a sergeant& the said datto further stating
that if he& Manalinde& was successful in the matter& he
would gi#e him a "retty woman on his return& but that in
case he was ca"tured he was to say that he "erformed
the killing by order of Maticayo& )atto Piang& Tambal and
/nug.
/n #iew of the com"laint filed by the "ro#incial
fiscal with the district court charging Manalinde with the
crime of murder& and "roceedings ha#ing been instituted&
the trial .udge rendered .udgment sentencing the accused
to the "enalty of death.
76635:
3hether the aggra#ating circumstances were "ro"erly
considered
85*9:
The fact that the #ictim of a treacherous murder
was not "redetermined does not affect or alter the nature
of the crime& when the criminal intent which was carried
out was to kill the first two "ersons whom the aggressor
should meet at the "lace where he intended to commit
the crimes.
5#en though in a crime committed u"on offer of
money& reward& or "romise& "remeditation is sometimes
"resent& it must be borne in mind that the latter is not
inherent in the former& and there e,isting no
incom"atibility between the two& they being inde"endent
of each other& "remeditation can not necessarily be
considered as included merely because an offer of
money& reward& or "romise was made& for the latter might
ha#e e,isted without the former.
This case& wherein the accused made u" his mind
to kill two undetermined "ersons& the first whom he
should meet on the way& in com"liance with the
inducement of a third "ersons& is entirely different from
that of a criminal who& intending to kill a "articular "erson&
de"ri#es of his life a "erson other than the ob.ect of his
criminal act4 both deeds are e'ually "unishable& but they
are different and are differently dealt with by the "enal
law.
[G.R. No. !"-4. August ,, $''.(
P5%P*5 vs. 93C367N
FACT6:
+n the date of the crime and "rior thereto& the
deceased Cesareo Tadefa li#ed with his wife Teodora
Vergara in the #illage of -an Jose& munici"ality of
Caba& Pro#ince of $a 6nion. The defendant& who was
TeodoraJs first cousin and CesareoJs second cousin&
li#ed in the same #illage of which he was second
lieutenant.
The defendant Mariano )ucusin had been making
lo#e to Teodora Vergara for about a month before
(ugust @9& @E9H& but she had re.ected him saying: ;/
cannot acce"t your lo#e for / am a married woman.;
The defendant then re"lied that he would do
e#erything in his "ower that her husband might die&
that she might be able to marry him. Teodora Vergara
related to her husband what the defendant had said
and he became angry and said: ;3hy does he do
that& being a relati#e of oursI;
(s Cesareo Tadefa failed to return home that
night& his wife went to the house of her brother%in%law&
5ugenio )omondon& which was a few meters away from
her own& and told him that her husband had not returned
from "asturing his carabaos. That same night 5ugenio
)omondon went in search of Cesareo Tadefa where
Teodora Vergara had "ointed out& but failed to find him.
Very early the ne,t morning they informed Cesareo
TadefaJs father of what had ha""ened& and all of them&
together with TeodoraJs mother& went to the field in
search of him.
They found CesareoJs dead body that same
morning on a hillside co#ered with cogon grass on the
defendantJs land& a kilometer away from the deceasedJs
house& lying face downwards under an adaan tree with a
se#ered "iece of #ine wound about his neck with a
sli"knot at the back. )uring the "reliminary in#estigation&
when the information was read to him and he was asked
whether he "leaded guilty or not guilty& he answered: ;/
admit that / caused the death& but / "lead not guilty.;
76635:
3hether the accused should be gi#en the death "enalty
85*9:
/n the commission of the crime& the circumstance
of e#ident "remeditation& 'ualifying the crime as murder&
must be considered& because& according to his own
confession& the defendant three times attem"ted to take
the life of Cesareo Tadefa in order to be able to marry his
widow& with whom he was in lo#e& "urchasing cognac in
order to facilitate the commission of the crime. The
aggra#ating circumstance defined in article @1& 2o. E& of
the Penal Code& that is& the em"loyment of means to
weaken the defense& consisting in this case& in ha#ing
made the deceased into,icated& must be taken into
account. This act cannot be .uridically considered to gi#e
rise to the aggra#ating circumstance may legally e,ist& it
is necessary that the means em"loyed should tend
directly and es"ecially to insure the e,ecution of a crime
against "ersons& without risk to the "er"etrator arising
from the defense which the offended "arty might make.
The defendantJs confession does not furnish
sufficient data as to the state of into,ication of the
deceased at the moment of strangulation& and the fact
that he could not articulate is not sufficient to determine
whether& in his into,icated state at that time& it was
im"ossible for him to "ut u" any sort of resistance.
The aggra#ating circumstance of uninhabited
"lace is likewise to be taken into account& inasmuch as
the crime was committed in an isolated and unfre'uented
"lace o#ergrown with weeds.
[G.R. No. $44-.. Novem&er ., $'$'.(
T85 3N7T59 6TAT56, plainti00+appellee, vs. :%65 7.
;A*3<%T, =e0en=ant+appellant.
FACT6:
(t the general election which was held on June ?&
@E@?& Conrado $erma was elected go#ernor of the
Pro#ince of <ataan. +ne of his com"etitors u"on this
occasion was the accused& Jose /. <aluyot& who came
out third in the race. (s a result of this contest a feeling of
"ersonal rancor was de#elo"ed in the mind of <aluyot
against his successful com"etitor& and during the two
years which followed the accused became fully imbued
with the idea that *o#ernor $erma was "ersecuting him.
/n the year @E@H <aluyot was "rosecuted in the
Court of First /nstance of the city of Manila for the offense
of estafa in connection with a loan of money which had
been negotiated at the Phili""ine 2ational <ank.
6"on the organization of the 2ational *uard&
<aluyot had been commissioned as ca"tain in that body&
and owing "ossibly to the "endency of the accusation for
estafa and its damaging effects u"on his re"utation& he
had been asked to resign from the "osition of ca"tain in
the 2ational *uard and although he had not resigned
when the act which ga#e occasion to this "rosecution
occurred& he had a""arently been tem"orarily relie#ed
from duty with that organization "ending in#estigation.
The misfortunes abo#e mentioned& as well as
others of a minor character& were attributed by <aluyot to
the machinations of *o#ernor $erma& all of which ser#ed
to foment and increase his feeling of enmity towards the
latter. The defendant left the city of Manila and went to
the town of +rion& in the Pro#ince of <ataan& taking with
him a re#ol#er.
The accused #isited the go#ernor in his office. The
go#ernor and the accused remained alone in the formerJs
office for = or > minutes& whereu"on it occurred to
*o#ernor $erma that the inter#iew might be more
e,tended than he had e,"ected& and he accordingly
re'uested that <aluyot should withdraw long enough for
the go#ernor to confer with one (ntonino (ran.uez& the
other caller to whom reference has already been made.
<aluyot accordingly withdrew into the recorderJs office.
The e#idence shows that at the time <aluyot
reentered the go#ernorJs office the latter was sitting
behind his desk in an ordinary office chair. <aluyot
a""roached the desk and u"on reaching a "osition
directly in front of the go#ernor s"oke certain words
which were heard& though not distinctly& by "ersons in the
recorderJs office& (ntonino (ran.uez merely heard the
accused call out ;go#ernor&J while *regorio de *uzman
understood <aluyot to be asking the go#ernor for his
re#ol#er. <aluyot then shot and killed the go#ernor.
76635:
3hether the aggra#ating circumstance of treachery was
"resent in this case
85*9:
The 'ualifying circumstance of ale#osia essential
to the crime of murder was found to be "resent in the
case at bar not only because of the sudden and
une,"ected manner in which the fatal assault with a
deadly wea"on was begun against the defenseless
#ictim& but also because of the "eculiar conditions under
which the offense was finally consummated.
5#en though a deadly attack may be begun under
conditions not e,hibiting the feature of ale#osia& yet if the
assault is continued and the crime consummated with
ale#osia& such circumstance may be taken into
consideration as a 'ualifying factor in the offense of
murder.
[G.R. No. *+!.4. Fe&ruar1 $, $',".(
P5%P*5 vs. N75RRA
FACT6:
(ccording to the e#idence of the "rosecution&
Juliana *adugdug%2ierra& 09& and Paciano 2ierra& =E&
her brother%in%law& were com"etitors in the businesses of
launch trans"ortation and the sale of soft drinks in <arrio
Tinago& *eneral -antos City. Juliana sold coca%cola while
Paciano sold "e"si%cola.
/n order to mono"olize those businesses in the
locality& Paciano 2ierra concei#ed the idea of li'uidating
his com"etitor& Juliana. For that "ur"ose& Felicisimo
)oblen& a cousin%in%law of Paciano& accom"anied to
PacianoJs house in the afternoon of July >& @E?E *as"ar
Misa& 9E& a con#icted murderer who in @E?0 had esca"ed
from the )a#ao Penal Colony. Misa came to <arrio
Tinago in June& @E?E. e resided with his cousin&
-il#estre Misa.
6"stairs in the bedroom of PacianoJs house& Misa&
in the "resence of *audencia *arrido%2ierra& the wife of
Paciano& agreed to kill Juliana in consideration of three
thousand "esos. Paciano "romised that in the morning
after the killing he would "ay Misa four hundred "esos
near the munici"al hall of Tu"i& -outh Cotabato which is
about forty kilometers away from *eneral -antos City.
The balance would be "aid in the same "lace on (ugust
@9& @E?E.
<etween se#en and eight oJclock that night& the
unwary Juliana went to the beach where she was
accustomed to #oid and when she s'uatted& Misa
une,"ectedly a""eared behind her& held her hair& thus
tilting her face. (nd while in that "osture& he inserted into
her mouth the muzzle of the "istol and fired it. Felicisimo
)oblen& Vicente !o.as and the s"ouses Paciano 2ierra
and *audencia 2ierra a""ealed from the decision
con#icting them of murder& sentencing each of them to
death.
76635:
3hether there were aggra#ating circumstances in#ol#ed
85*9:
7es& there were. The -C was con#inced that the
guilt of a""ellants 2ierra was "ro#en beyond reasonable
doubt. The killing was correctly characterized by the trial
court as murder 'ualified by treachery and aggra#ated by
"remeditation and "rice or reward. (s to the 2ierras&
relationshi" is an additional aggra#ating circumstance.
Treachery absorbed nocturnity and abuse of su"eriority.
The manner in which Misa li'uidated Juliana 2ierra%
added shame& disgrace or oblo'uy to the material in.ury
caused by the crime. ence& ignominy is aggra#ating.
/n MisaJs case& recidi#ism as an aggra#ating
circumstance offset his "lea of guilty. That did not
"reclude the im"osition of the death "enalty u"on him.
Considering the aggra#ating circumstances& the death
"enalty im"osed on the 2ierra s"ouses is in accordance
with law. owe#er& for lack of the re'uisite ten #otes& the
death "enalty im"osed on *audencia 2ierra should be
commuted to reclusion "er"etua.
[G.R. No. *+!,"$.. 6eptem&er $", $',$.(
P5%P*5 vs. 23>%?
FACT6:
)efendants%a""ellants were charged before the
Court of First /nstance with murder to which they all
"leaded not guilty and claimed the defense of alibi. (t the
trial& it was established& howe#er& that they were both
seen on a "olice "atrol .ee" and armed on the afternoon
of the date of the commission of the crime a few
kilometers away from the scene of the crime4 that
together& they arri#ed at the scene of the crime& alighted
from said #ehicle and a""roached the #ictim4 that
a""ellant MuMoz suddenly and without warning shot the
deceased while a""ellant Millora stood by in a ready
"osition4 and that they loaded the body of the #ictim in
their #ehicle and dro#e away.
Conse'uently& the trial court con#icted both
accused as charged and im"osed the death "enalty
because of the finding that the commission of the crime
was attended by the 'ualifying aggra#ating circumstance
of treachery and the ordinary aggra#ating circumstance
of use of motor #ehicle without any mitigating
circumstance. The trial court& howe#er& sus"ended
.udgment on a""ellant Millora& as he was only @> years&
fi#e months and 9> days old at the time of the
commission of the crime& in com"liance with (rticle H1 of
the !e#ised Penal Code.
+n a""eal& defendants%a""ellants "ointed to
contradictions& discre"ancies and im"robabilities in the
testimonies of the "rosecution witnesses. (""ellant
MuMoz alleged that the trial court erred when it did not
e,clude his alleged confession the same ha#ing been
allegedly e,tracted under duress& #iolence& threat and
intimidation& while a""ellant Millora stressed that
cons"iracy was not "ro#ed during trial.
76635
3hether there were aggra#ating circumstances in#ol#ed
85*9:
+n re#iew& the -u"reme Court held: @G that the
findings of the trial court are su""orted by the e#idence
on record4 9G that although there was no direct "roof that
a""ellants Millora and MuMoz entered into cons"iracy to
kill the #ictim& their unity of criminal design can be
inferred from the s"ecific acts done by both of them4 =G
that the alleged inconsistencies on minor details as on
matters that are not of material conse'uence as to affect
the guilt or innocence of the accused do not detract from
the credibility of the witness4 >G that a""ellant MuMoz was
not able to discharge the burden of "ro#ing the
in#oluntariness of his confession4 0G that a""ellantsJ alibi
cannot o#ercome the "ositi#e identification made by
eyewitnesses4 ?G that treachery 'ualified the killing to
murder since the a""ellants deliberately "er"etrated a
sur"rise and sudden assault on the unarmed #ictim
without gi#ing him a chance to defend himself4 AG that the
use of motor #ehicle& which was not alleged in the
information& should not be considered as an aggra#ating
circumstance in determining the "enalty& since the same
is merely incidental and not deliberately utilized to
facilitate the killing of the #ictim& the esca"e of the
a""ellants from the scene of the crime& and the
concealment of the body of the #ictim4 HG that the crime
committed is murder 'ualified by treachery under (rticle
9>H of the !e#ised Penal Code4 and EG that there being
no aggra#ating circumstance& the "ro"er "enalty is
reclusion "er"etua. Judgment of the court a 'uo affirmed
with modification.
[G.R. No. *+!"4$!. :anuar1 , $',".(
P5%P*5 vs. *AN65TA
FACT6:
(t about =:11 oJclock in the early morning of
January @@& @E?E& a""ellant !olando Ja#ier arri#ed at the
;karinderia; owned and o"erated by witness (suncion
Tura. (suncionJs sister& !osalia Tura& ser#ed the
a""ellant. (side from a""ellant there were many other
customers eating at the ;karinderia;. (fter a""ellant had
finished eating and while he remained seated at the
;karinderia;& witness (suncion Tura noticed that a man&
who turned out to be the #ictim& Pat. -urilla& a""roached
the a""ellant and introduced himself as a detecti#e to
a""ellant. 3itness (suncion Tura saw that a""ellant
stood u" when accosted by the detecti#e after which
a""ellant and the detecti#e walked away from the store.
3hen the a""ellant and the detecti#e had walked
about ten C@1G meters away from the store& witness
(suncion Tura heard two shots and somebody shouting
for hel". 3hen she turned her face towards that direction&
she saw the a""ellant sitting astride the detecti#e and
stabbing the latter many times. The detecti#e was then
lying flat on his stomach. (fter a""ellant had deli#ered
many stab blows& witness (suncion Tura saw him go
towards the toilet& holding a gun in his left hand and a
hunting knife in his right hand. 3itness (suncion Tura did
not see a""ellant again. -aid witness identified a""ellant
in Court and declared that she had known a""ellant for
two years because he fre'uented the -oriano market and
was her customer. owe#er& it was the first time she saw
the #ictim& Pat. -urilla.
The Manila Circuit Criminal Court im"osed the
death "enalty on herein a""ellant& !olando Ja#ier y
Primera& for the crime of !obbery with omicide& with the
attendant aggra#ating circumstance of treachery&
disregard of res"ect due to the deceased on account of
his rank& and cruelty& offset only by the mitigating
circumstance of #oluntary surrender.
76635:
3hether the court correctly considered the aggra#ating
circumstances
85*9:
Contrary to the findings of the trial court& the -C
held that there was no treachery. There is treachery when
the offender em"loys means& methods or forms in the
e,ecution of the crime which tend directly and s"ecially to
insure its e,ecution& without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended "arty might make. /n this
case& while a""ellant suddenly and une,"ectedly
stabbed the deceased& treachery does not connote the
element of sur"rise alone. The #ictim must ha#e had no
o""ortunity to defend himself or to re"el the initial
assault. (s it is& the deceased was able to "ull out his
gun and was able to defend himself but was ultimately
bested by a""ellant. The means em"loyed by a""ellant
in stabbing the #ictim& therefore& was not without risk to
himself arising from the defense that the #ictim did make.
The -C also found as erroneous& but which the
defense failed to raise& the a""reciation by the trial Court
of the aggra#ating circumstance of cruelty based u"on
the "resence of twenty se#en C9AG wounds on the #ictimJs
body. ;There is cruelty when the cul"rit en.oys and
delights in making his #ictim suffer slowly and gradually&
causing him unnecessary moral and "hysical "ain in the
consummation of the criminal act which he intends to
commit. The mere fact of inflicting #arious successi#e
wounds u"on a "erson in order to cause his death& no
a""reciable time inter#ening between the infliction of one
wound and that of another to show that he had wanted to
"rolong the suffering of his #ictim& is not sufficient for
taking this aggra#ating circumstance into consideration.
2either did the -C find the circumstance of
;disregard of res"ect due the offended "arty on account
of his rank; under (rt. @>& "aragra"h = of the !e#ised
Penal Code& "resent in this case. The act of a""ellant in
attacking the #ictim& an agent of a "erson in authority&
while the latter was in the "erformance of official duty& is
actually constituti#e of )irect (ssault& or atentado& under
(rticle @>H of the !e#ised Penal Code. That crime is
characterized by the s"irit of aggression directed against
the authorities or their agents& hence& the circumstance of
;disregard of res"ect due the offended "arty on account
of his rank; may be considered inherent therein. /n sum&
a""ellant should be con#icted of sim"le omicide&
attended by the mitigating circumstance of #oluntary
surrender& without any aggra#ating circumstance to offset
the same.
[G.R. No. .!44. 2arch $, $'$$.(
3N7T59 6TAT56 vs. R%9R7G35?
FACT6:
The a""ellants& with nine others& being members
of the second com"any of the Constabulary stationed at
)a#ao& mutinied and attem"ted& during the course of
such mutiny& to kill one of their su"erior officers&
$ieutenant *oicuria. /mmediately after such re#olt the
mutineers& they took arms and ammunition from the
de"ositary& left the #icinity of )a#ao and marched toward
the mountains of $i"ada. The mutineers returned to
)a#ao for the "ur"ose of attacking the town. The
inhabitants thereof& ha#ing recei#ed "re#ious notice of
the "ro"osed attack& "re"ared themsel#es to meet it. J.
$. <urchfield& P. C. $ibby& (. M. Tem"leton& and !oy
$ibby& armed with rifles& were detailed by those
commanding the defense of the town& on the afternoon of
the day referred to. They ad#anced to the cemetery
within the limits of the town& forming an out"ost for the
"ur"ose of awaiting the coming of the mutineers. (
gunfight ten ensued. !oy $ibby was killed. 2o other
"erson e,ce"t !oy $ibby was killed& although se#eral
others were more or less se#erely wounded.
76635:
3hether there were aggra#ating circumstances
85*9:
(s to whether or not there was "resent
"remeditacion conocida& 'ualifying the crime as murder&
a sim"le reading of the "roofs "resented by the
*o#ernment is sufficient to demonstrate that beyond
'uestion or doubt. The learned trial court found
"remeditacion conocida as the element 'ualifying the
crime as murder.
The -C held that the circumstance of craft& fraud
or disguise was not "resent. This circumstance is
characterized by the intellectual or mental rather than the
"hysical means to which the criminal resorts to carry out
his design. The facts do not show any element which
warrants the conclusions of the learned trial court as to
the "resence of this circumstance in the commission of
the crime of which the a""ellants were found guilty. They
boldly marched from the mountains of $i"ada to )a#ao&
"artly& at least& in the daytime& with the "ur"ose of
attacking the town& which "ur"ose they communicated to
at least three "ersons& one of whom was "ermitted to
"recede them to the town. They ad#anced against the
town at about >.@0 in the afternoon without any effort at
concealment. They were in no way disguised. There is
nothing in the case of craft& fraud or disguise.
The circumstance of su"erior strength or means
are em"loyed to weaken the defense de"ends u"on the
relati#e strength of the one attacking and the one
attacked. /t can hardly be said that ad#antage is taken of
su"erior strength or means are em"loyed to weaken the
defense when twenty%three men& in the daytime& o"enly
and without stratagem of any kind& attack a town the size
of )a#ao.
For the e,istence of abuse of confidence it is
necessary that there e,ist a relation of trust or confidence
between the "erson committing the crime and the one
against whom it is committed and that the former make
use of such relation to commit the crime. /n order that this
aggra#ating circumstance e,ist it is necessary that the
"erson committing the crime be a "ublic official and that
he use the influence& "restige or ascendency which such
office gi#es him as the means by which he realizes his
"ur"ose. The -C does not belie#e that the facts of this
case warrant the finding of the trial court in this "articular.
The reason why the commission of a crime on the
occasion of a fire& shi"wreck& or other calamity or
misfortune is an aggra#ating circumstance is found in the
debased form of criminality met in one who& in the midst
of a great calamity& instead of lending aid to the afflicted&
adds to their suffering by taking ad#antage of their
misfortune to des"oil them. (s is readily seen from the
facts& no such condition as is described in this "aragra"h
e,isted in )a#ao on the occasion of the attack.
3ith regard to the crime being committed in
contem"t with insult to the "ublic authorities& the -C held
that the courts shall take this circumstance into
consideration according to the nature and characteristics
of the crime. /n the case at bar& the "ersons e,ercising
that authority were the #ery "ersons against whom&
among others& the crime charged in this action was being
committed. The .udgment of the court below is hereby
modified and the a""ellants are each sentenced to
cadena "er"etua.