PEOPLE vs. DANILO FELICIANO, JR.

, JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA,

WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014
LEONEN, J.

Facts:
Seven members of the Sigma Rho fraternity while eating lunch at UP Diliman were attacked by
several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. One of them died, and the others required
hospitalization. The victims testified that they were able to identify some of the perpetrators since some of
them were not wearing masks, or had their mask fell off.

On the other hand, the defense presented several witnesses whose testimonies said the
attackers were unrecognizable since they were wearing masks. In defense of the accused Feliciano, his
mother testified that he was in Pampanga at the time of the incident. As for the other accused, they gave
their own alibis having their presence elsewhere at the time of the incident.

Trial court found Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
While Ablanida, Fajardo and Magpantay were acquitted, and the case against Guerrero was archived
until his apprehension. The trial court held that of the ten accused, some were sufficiently identified and
some were not. The prosecution eyewitnesses were emphatic that they saw the attackers rush towards
them wielding deadly weapons and pounce on their victims, run after them, and being present with one
another at the scene of the crime during the assault. Although each victim had a very strong motive to
place his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one of them testified against all of them. If the
prosecution eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting Scintilla Juris
members for that matter, they could have easily tagged each and every single accused as a participant to
make sure that no one else would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named only one or two
and some were candid enough to say that they did not see who delivered the blows against them.

Issues:

1. Was the inclusion of the aggravating circumstance of “use of masks” in the information proper?

2. On the basis of evidence, were the accused-appellants sufficiently identified?

3. Was treachery employed in the commission of the felony?

Held:

1.
Yes. It was incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of "wearing
masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that
effect, to be admissible by the trial court. Disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime,
it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes. 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 from including disguise as an aggravating
circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
concealment of identity by the accused.

2.
Yes. The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are credible despite the slight
inconsistencies in their statements. It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the
occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice
while the other may not observe or remember. Jurisprudence warns against a perfect dovetailing of
narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.

In the commotion, it was more than likely that the masked assailants could have lost their masks.
It had been testified by the victims that some of the assailants were wearing masks of either a piece of
cloth or a handkerchief. While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would have had the presence
of mind to take a look at their assailants if they were identifiable. Their positive identification, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, must be upheld to be credible. And when the bystanders'
testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from
beginning to end at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack
occurred.

Furthermore, it is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a

witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that
appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In this
case, the victims were able to positively identify their attackers while the accused-appellants merely
offered alibis and denials as their defense.

3.
Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

The victims were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any
sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes
and baseball bats. In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible for
them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less than a minute, which would
preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until after the incident.The swiftness
and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.

And finally, the presence of conspiracy makes all of the accused- appellants liable for murder and
attempted murder. Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching liability to all of the accused,
regardless of their degree of participation, thus: Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of
the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective
active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy
because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
 ALBERTO ALMOJUELA y VILLANUEVA, vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 183202 June 2, 2014
BRION, J.

Facts:
Masula, Quejong, Paz, along with some others, were on their way home from a party when they
encountered Almojuela, who was having a drinking spree with his friends in front of his house.
Immediately fter a few exchange of words between Paz and Almojuela, a fight ensued between the two.
In the course of the fight, Paz sustained stab wounds allegedly from Almojuela, causing the
former to retreat. Quejong joined in and grappled Almojuela. Kagawad Abarquez and and was able to
pacify the parties. Masula testified that he did not actually see Almojuela stab Quejong when they were
grappling on the ground. However, he also said that he noticed blood on Quejong’s back. On Quejong’s
way home, their friends saw that he had stab wounds in his back. They immediately rushed him to the
hospital where he died approximately two to three hours from admission.

Issue:
1. Is circumstantial evidence strong enough as basis for conviction?
2. Can the mitigating circumstance of self-defense and voluntary surrender be appreciated?

Held:

1.
Yes. It is clear that no direct evidence points to Almojuela as the one who stabbed Quejong.
However, a finding of guilt is still possible despite the absence of direct evidence. Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken together, create an
unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, was
the author of the crime. Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as that evidence that proves a fact
or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference, in this case, there the
evidence shows that there is an unbroken chain leading in the reasonable conclusion that Amojuela is
guilty of the crime of homicide. From the time Almojulea provoked Paz and his group to a fight, it was his
aggression that started the events leading to Quejong’s death. Testimony of Masula showed that only
Almojuela was armed with a knife during the fight. And there were only three persons involved in the fight.
Paz was wounded causing him to retreat, making it improbable that he was the one who stabbed
Quejong. Masula also testified that he saw blood on Quejong’s back during his fight with Almojuela, even
though he testified that he did not actually see the latter stab the former. And finally, Almojuela’s act of
hiding when policemen came to visit him is an act of flight which is an indication of guilt especially so
when there is no credible explanation for such act. These proven circumstances lead to the reasonable
conclusion that Almojuela stabbed Quejong during their fight, causing the latter’s subsequent death.

2.
No, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had
committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. This mitigating
circumstance is inapplicable in this case because the unlawful aggression did not start from the victim
Quejong but from Almojuela. The prosecution proved that it was Almojuela who first challenged Paz and
his group to a fight. Almojuela came prepared to fight and was in fact armed with a bladed weapon.
Moreover, the third element is also absent since there is no lack of sufficient provocation on Almojuela’s
part as shown by his confrontational stance right from the start.

However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of

Almojuela. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to submit
himself to the authorities either because he acknowledged his guilt or he wished to save the authorities
the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. Although Almojuela hid when
policemen first visited him in his home, it was also duly proven that soon after he learned of Quejong’s
death, Almojuela voluntarily gave himself up.
 PEOPLE vs. JENNY LIKIRAN alias "Loloy",
G.R. No. 201858 June 4, 2014 REYES, J.

Facts:
Prosecution witnesses Celso Dagangon (Dagangon), Prescado Mercado (Mercado) and
Constancio Goloceno (Goloceno) testified that during the night of their town fiesta, they were at the dance
together with Sareno. After a few hours, while Mercado and Goloceno were inside the dance area,
Jerome, the accused-appellant’s brother, punched Mercado on the mouth. Goloceno was about to assist
Mercado when he saw that Jerome was armed with a short firearm while the accused-appellant was
holding a hunting knife, so he backed off. Dagangon and Sareno, who were outside the dance area,
heard the commotion. Afterwards, Jerome approached Sareno and shot him several times. With Sareno
fallen, the accused-appellant stabbed him on the back. It was Dagangon who saw the incident first-hand
as he was only three meters from where Sareno was. Dagangon was able to bring Sareno to the hospital
only after Jerome and the accused-appellant left, but Sareno was already dead at that point.

Issue:
1. Was the identity of accused adequately established?
2. Can the accused be absolved of the crime charged based on findings that his acts was merely
contributory?

Held:
1.
Yes. The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the
criminal. In this case, the identity of the accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime has
been adequately established by the prosecution, more particularly by the testimony of Dagangon, who
was only three meters away from the accused-appellant and Jerome and had a good view of them.
Moreover, there was no distraction that could have disrupted Dagangon’s attention. He even immediately
identified the accused-appellant and Jerome during police investigation, and there is no showing that
Dagangon was informed by the police beforehand that the accused-appellant was one of the
suspects. Positive identification by a prosecution witness of the accused as one of the perpetrators of the
crime is entitled to greater weight than alibi and denial. Such positive identification gains further ground in
the absence of any ill motive on the part of a witness to falsely testify against an accused.

2.
No. The accused-appellant is criminally liable for the natural and logical consequence resulting
from his act of stabbing Sareno. It may be that he was not the shooter, it is nevertheless true that the stab
wound he inflicted on Sareno contributed to the latter’s death.
If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death
follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to
prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the
death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim.