c




   

     appellee,

vs.
!"#
$%#&' ()$
$
 "#
$ appellants.

Facts: The spouses Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were, in the early hours of February 23, 2000, fast asleep
in their room on the ground floor of their two-storey house at Alunan-Yulo in Bacolod City, Negros
Occidental. The room had a glass wall with a glass sliding door which was closed but not locked. The
kitchen light was open, as was the light in the adjoining room where the couple's young children,
Jummylin and Janine, were sleeping. Their niece, Aireen Bocateja, and Jaime's elder daughter, Rizza
6 7
Mae, were asleep in their rooms on the second floor. At around 2:00 a.m., Jaime was roused from his
sleep by appellant Ventura who, together with his nephew appellant Flores, had stealthily entered the
couple's room after they gained entry into the house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door.As established
by the testimonial and object evidence for the prosecution, the following transpired thereafter:Appellant
Ventura pointed a revolver at Jaime's face, announced a hold-up, hit Jaime on the head with the gun and
asked him for his keys. 8When appellant Ventura struck him again, Jaime called out for help and tried to
grab the revolver. The two men then struggled for possession of the gun. As Jaime almost succeeded in
wresting possession of the gun from him, appellant Flores shouted to appellant Ventura to stab Jaime.
Using the knife hewas carrying, appellant Flores stabbed Jaime three times. Jaime thereupon released
the gun, threw a nearby plastic stool at the jalousy glass window causing it to break and cried out for
help.9In the meantime, Aileen who had been awakened, began shouting for help as she saw her husband
in mortal danger. Appellant Flores stabbed her, however, with his knife, and although Aileen tried to
10
defend herself with an electric cord, appellant Flores continued stabbing her. Awakened by the
commotion, Aireen descended the stairs and saw the knife wielding appellant Flores whom she
recognized as a former employee of the butcher shop of the Bocataje spouses. Pleading with appellant
Flores not to harm her, Aireen ran back upstairs into Rizza Mae's room, and the two called to their
neighbors for help. Appellants Ventura and Flores thereupon fled the Bocateja house,12bringing nothing
with them.

Issue: Whetjer or not the court erred in considering evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance?

Ruling: The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded
by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.39 For it to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.40

By appellants' argument, even if appellant Ventura became jealous when he learned of the illicit affair
between his wife and Jaime, it is not, by itself, sufficient proof that he determined to kill the latter; that with
Jaime's testimony that appellant had announced a "hold-up," they, at most, intended to rob, but not kill the
spouses; that their only purpose was to confront Jaime regarding his supposed affair with appellant
Ventura's wife, Johanna; and that if they had truly intended to kill Jaime, then appellant Ventura would not
have bothered to awaken him, but would just have shot him in his sleep.
Case#128

V
  
 


i
 , vs. ¢V


 
.

Facts: This is an appeal of defendant Domingo Ural from the decision of Judge Vicente G. Ericta of the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, convicting him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola in the sum of twelve thousand pesos
and to pay the costs (Criminal Case No. 3280).The judgment of conviction was based on the
testimony of Brigido Alberto, a twenty-six year old former detention prisoner in Buug, Zamboanga del
Sur. He had been accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail. He
went to Barrio Camongo, Dumalinao where his father resided. On July 31, 1966, he intended to go to
his residence at Barrio Upper Lamari, Buug but night overtook him in the town. He decided to sleep in
the Buug municipal building where there would be more security. Upon arrival in the municipal
building at around eight o'clock, he witnessed an extraordinary occurrence. He saw Policeman Ural
(with whom he was already acquainted) inside the jail. Ural was boxing the detention prisoner, Felix
Napola. As a consequence of the fistic blows, Napola collapsed on the floor. Ural, the tormentor,
stepped on his prostrate body. Ural went out of the cell. After a short interval, he returned with a
bottle. He poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body. Then, he ignited it with a match and left
the cell. Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help. Nobody came to succor him. Much perturbed
by the barbarity which he had just seen, Alberto left the municipal building. Before his departure, Ural
cautioned him: "You better keep quiet of what I have done" (sic). Alberto did not sleep anymore that
night. From the municipal building, he went to the crossing, where the cargo trucks passed. He
hitchhiked in a truck hauling iron ore and went home. Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health
officer, certified that the thirty-year old victim, whom she treated twice, sustained second-degree
burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one-half of the body including the back (Exh. A).
She testified that his dermis and epidermis were burned. If the burns were not properly treated, death
would unsue from toxemia and tetanus infection. "Without any medical intervention", the burns would
cause death", she said. She explained that, because there was water in the burnt area, secondary
infection would set in, or there would be complications.

Issue: Whether or not Ural is Criminally Liable under Art. $ of the Revised Penal Code?

Ruling: The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Par. 1,
Art. 14, Revised Penal Code). He could not have maltreated Napola if he was not a policeman on
guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell where Napola was confined. The prisoner
was under his custody. "The policeman, who taking advantage of his public position maltreats a
private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely
not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the police officer in
the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual
from the abuse of the police." U.S. vs. Pabalan, 37 Phil. 352 But the trial court failed to appreciate the
mitigating circumstance "that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed" (Par. 3, Art. 13, Revised Penal Code). It is manifest from the proven facts that appellant
Ural had no intent to kill Napola. His design was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken
condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention cell. When Ural realized the fearful
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance
of abuse of his official position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of ±

 ± 
which is the medium period of the penalty for murder (Arts. 64[4] and 248, Revised Penal
Code)
Case#129

V
   

 ! "#$%& ' ()##* #'"  + 

i
 , vs. 
,¢  

.

Facts: Marcelo Amit was charged in the court below with the complex crime of rape with homicide
described and penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Arraigned with the
assistance of a counsel  
, he pleaded guilty. Due to the gravity of the offense charged,
however, the Court required additional evidence from the prosecution, which the latter presented in
the form of (1) the extrajudicial confession of appellant in Ilocano (exhibit A) and its translation into
English (Exhibit A-1) wherein he narrated in detail how the crime was committed; (2) the autopsy
report (Exhibit B) describing the injuries suffered by the victim as she resisted appellant's criminal
advances against her honor; and (3) the medical certificate (Exhibit C) describing the personal injuries
suffered by the appellant himself during the struggle put up against him by the victim. On the basis of
appellant's plea of guilty and the abovementioned evidence, the trial court rendered judgment
sentencing him "to suffer the supreme penalty of death, with the accessories prescribed by law; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rufina Arellano in the amount of P6,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs." Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9,
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, said judgment was elevated to us for review. While appellant
does not question the correctness of the decision under review in so far as it finds him guilty of the
crime charged, he claims, through his counsel 
, that the penalty of death imposed upon him
should be reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of the presence of three mitigating circumstances
which the trial court should have considered in his favor, namely: (1) plea of guilty; (2) voluntary
surrender, and (3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners claim of the existence of mitigating circumstance is enough to lower
down the penalty of Death imposed to him?

Held: The Solicitor General admits that the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary
surrender have been proven, but denies that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed was similarly established. We agree with this
latter contention. Appellant's contention - because of its nature, must necessarily be judged in the
light of the acts committed by him and the circumstances under which they were committed. Should
they show a great disproportion between the means employed to accomplish the criminal act - on the
one hand - and its consequences - on the other - the mitigating circumstance under consideration
must be considered in favor of the accused (U.S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil. 904, 906-907). Otherwise, it
should not.The penalty of Death prescribed in the last paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2632 and 4111 being an indivisible penalty, it has to be
imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, especially in a case like the present
where, according to the evidence of record, the crime was committed with the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength (first paragraph, Article 63, Revised Penal
Code).
Case#130

V
  -!) +


 

i
 , vs. V
V!.-,¢defendants-

appellants.

Facts: For automatic review is the death sentence imposed on accused-appellants Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda
by the then Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, in Criminal Case No. 12, entitled •i     
 

•for robbery with homicide. They were also ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Victor Flores
the sum of P12,000.00; the further sum of P870.00; and each to pay one-third of the costs. Prosecution evidence
shows that about nine o'clock in the evening of November 22, 1969, three persons called at the house of Victor
Flores at sitio Macaranas, Bo. Capierawa, Palo, Leyte asking if they could buy cigarettes. Felicisima Flores, wife of
Victor, was then maintaining a small sari-sari store inside their house. Upon hearing them, she stood up and, after
lighting a small kerosene lamp, opened the door of the house and extended the lamp out to recognize the persons
outside. She saw accused Miguel Regato who was then at the porch and Jose Salceda. As she kept on exposing the
light at them Regato approached Felicisima and struck her hand holding the lamp, causing it to fall. Regato then
pointed a gun at Felicisima who moved backwards, towards the kitchen after which she jumped out and ran to the
house of Filomeno Pilmaco, a neighbor. She told Pilmaco about the three persons who went up their house and
pointed a gun at her. She asked for help and she was told to simply stay in the house while he and companions
would rush to the poblacion of Palo to inform the police of the incident happening at sitio Macarinas. After Pilmaco
and companions had left for the poblacion, Felicisima heard and gun explosion from the direction of their house.
libraryIn the meantime, Godofredo Flores, the 12-year old son of Felicisima, who was sleeping in the sala was
awakened by the voice of the robbers asking the occupants to come down. Godofredo observed that his mother
was not in the house but saw his father, Victor Flores, being dragged down the stairway by Rito Ramirez and
Miguel Regato. He saw also appellant Jose Salceda take hold of Florencio (brother of Godofredo) who was at the
stairs, being brought inside the house. Appellant Salceda then lighted the lamp which was then on the floor of the
sala of the house and then he brought Florencio inside the bedroom where Godofredo was then hiding. Rito
Ramirez and appellant Regato in turn, brought Victor Flores inside the sala. Thereafter, Regato hit Victor Flores
with the butt of his gun and said: "Where is your money? Where is your money? When Victor answered that they
did not have any, Rito Ramirez boxed Victor at the mouth breaking one of his teeth. The three - Ramirez, Regato
and Salceda, did not notice Godofredo in his hiding place by the door of the bedroom, and the latter saw
everything that transpired inside the house because of the lighted lamp on the floor about a meter away.While
Victor Flores was being maltreated by Rito Ramirez and appellant Regato to force him to reveal where their money
was, appellant Salceda was busy ransacking a trunk inside the bedroom where he found a small box containing
P870.00. Salceda took the money, put out the light and went to the kitchen. Ramirez then asked Salceda whether
he was able to find the money and upon being told that he did, Ramirez rebuked Victor Flores: "You old man you
are telling a he. You said you have no money. " Victor Flores retorted: "You robbers With this remark, Rito Ramirez
shot Victor Flores following which the three - Regato, Salceda and Ramirez rushed out of the house and fled. After
some minutes, Felicisima Flores went back to the house and found her husband, Victor, bleeding. Things inside the
bedroom were scattered and their trunk opened. She found the money inside the trunk gone. With the help of a
nephew, they brought Victor Flores to the poblacion of Palo. On the way, they were met by the police patrol which
proceeded to the scene of the robbery.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners claim of the existence of a mitigating circumstance is enough to lower the
penalty imposed is sufficient?

Held: Likewise, We find no merit in the contention that there was lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. Intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be judged by the
action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at
bar, the aforesaid mitigating instance cannot be appreciated consider that the acts employed by the accused were
reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually made - the death of the victim