Proposal and Conspiracy

PP v. Bangcado GR 132330

Facts:

Pacson Cogasi, Julio Clemente, Leandro Adawan and Richard Lino were at the Skyview Restaurant, Baguio City, drinking.
Moments later, a group of 5 arrived and sat one table away from Pacson Cogasi and his friends. Among the newcomers was a
thin person wearing a blue long-sleeved jacket, later identified as SPO1 Jose Bangcado, and a heavier one wearing a t-shirt and
maong pants, later identified as PO3 Cesar Banisa. The rest of their group were not identified. At that time, members of the
police force of Baguio City were conducting Operation Kapkap at the Skyview Restaurant. They however exempted the table of
PO3 Cesar Banisa as they knew him to be a fellow policeman. At around 9:00 PM, Cogasi and his friends left the restaurant to go
home to Benguet. As they went behind the restaurant where their Ford Fierra was parked, they noticed SPO1 Jose Bangcado and

PO3 Cesar Banisa following them. Cogasi and his group recognized Bangcado and Banisa to be customers at Skyview Restaurant.
Bangcado and Banisa approached them. First, Banisa asked Richard Lino for a light. Then Bangcado and Banisa asked the group if
they were willing to be frisked. Since the two police officers were armed with handguns and smelled of liquor, the group agreed
to be frisked. As Leandro Adawan stepped aside to urinate, Bangcado slapped him and then asked the group where they came
from. Their answer was, from Besao, Mt. Province, except Clemente who said that he came from La Trinidad. Bangcado, with
Banisa standing guard behind him with a drawn gun, ordered Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan and Lino to form a line. Without any
warning, Bangcado suddenly fired his gun in quick succession at the four persons lined up against the Ford Fierra. Cogasi saw
Adawan and Lino fall down. Cogasi then felt he was hit on the left side of his neck and he also fell down. Cogasi woke up to find
himself confined at the Baguio General Hospital together with Clemente. There Cogasi learned that Lino and Adawan died from
gunshot wounds in their heads. Cogasi and Clemente filed a complaint with the NBI and 4 civilian males were presented to
Cogasi for identification, but he told them that the suspects were not among those present. Clemente did not participate in the
identification process because of his eye injury.

Bangcado and Banisa reported for their regular rank inspection and were told to remain in formation after the inspection. Cogasi
then pointed Bangcado and then to Banisa. Clemente was unable to identify anybody. Accused-appellants insist that Clemente
could not have made a reliable identification of them at the NBI and La Trinidad line ups, nor even in open court, because his eye
injury blurred his vision.

Issue:

WoN there is conspiracy between Bangcado and Banisa NO

Ruling:

MODIFIED as follows:

SPO1 Jose Bangcado is found GUILTY of 2 counts of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery, and
is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is also found GUILTY of 2 counts of frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6
of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of modifying circumstances, he is
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten (10) days reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.

There being no finding of conspiracy with accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado, PO3 Cesar Banisa is ACQUITTED of all the
charges against him and, consequently, is ordered released from custody in connection with herein cases, unless he is held for
other lawful causes.

Rationale:

 There is no requirement of a certain quantum of evidence before one may be justly convicted of an offense except when
specifically required by law (REQUIRED IN CONSPIRACY). The only requisite then is that the guilt of the accused is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

 The time honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit.

 In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for
his own acts. Banisa must be absolved from criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims.
 It is settled that qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed but must be established by clear and convincing evidence,
as conclusively as the killing itself.

PP v. Bagano GR 139351

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Rationale:

PP v. Compo GR 112990

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Rationale:

PP v. Canturia GR 108490

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Rationale:

PP v. Rafael GR 123176

Facts:

Alejandra and her daughter-in-law Gloria, were preparing dinner in the kitchen when they heard a commotion outside the house.
Without warning, appellant and his 2 sons (Melchor and Mario), barged inside the kitchen. Appellant was unarmed while
Melchor and Mario were armed with bolos. Suddenly, Melchor hacked Alejandra's left hand, severing it from her body. Alejandra
slumped in a corner and pleaded with Melchor not to kill her. Appellant stood in front of the kitchen door and jusr watched.
After hacking Alejandra, Melchor turned to Gloria and hacked her on the head. Gloria managed to run outside the house but
Mario chased her. At this point, Alejandra could no longer see what was happening to Gloria because of the continuous bleeding
of her hand. Melchor turned to Alejandra anew and continued to stab her on the different parts of the body. Alejandra feigned
death by lying still. Believing that Alejandra was dead, Melchor left her and went outside. Alejandra heard appellant telling his
two sons in the Pangasinan dialect, "Patayin, patayin iran amen!" (Kill them all!).
The commotion woke Rogelio Rafael, who was sleeping upstairs. When Rogelio peeped through the jalousie window, he saw
Melchor and Mario chasing his wife Gloria. The scene was illuminated by a light coming from the nearby piggery. When Gloria
stumbled, Melchor and Mario repeatedly hacked her. Rogelio shouted at them to have mercy on his wife. He frantically rushed
downstairs to help her. When he got outside, however, the assailants had already fld. He tried to run after them but failed. When

Rogelio went back to check on his wife and mother, he found his wife Gloria, dead, and his mother, Alejandra, with her left hand
severed. He requested his brother-in-law, Aragon to rush Alejandra to the hospital. Aragon brought Alejandra to the Medical
Center where she was diagnosed to have "traumatic amputation, L. wrist.” Thereafter, Rogelio reported the stabbing incident to
the Batasan Police Detachment.

Appellant prays for for a lower penalty by being held liable merely as an accomplice.

Issue:

WoN there was conspiracy between the appellant (Father) and his 2 sons CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED

Ruling:

the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

(1 appellant is found guilty as an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of MURDER for the death of Gloria Tuatis-Rafael, and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of eight (8) years, eight months and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six
(6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as

civil indemnity, P94,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages;

(2) appellant is found guilty as an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER of Alejandra Macaraeg-Rafael, and
sentenced two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional medium as minimum to eight (8) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as maximum, and ordered to pay the victim

Rationale:

 The prosecution witnesses did not see him bearing any weapon or using one to inflict any injury on the victims. He did not
run away with the two other accused still at large. Thus, the SC is far from convinced that conspiracy existed between
appellant and any of his sons. Conspiracy cannot be logically inferred from the overt acts of herein appellant. We have
previously ruled that relationship or association alone is not a badge of conspiracy. When there is doubt as to whether guilty
participant in the killing has committed the role of a principal or that of an accomplice, the court should favor the milder
form of responsibility. When there is doubt as to whether a guilty participant in the killing has committed the role of a
principal or that of an accomplice, the court should favor the milder form of responsibility.

 Evidently, appellant's utterances could not have been the determining cause of the commission of the crimes. If at all, it
merely had further inflammatory effect on the accused. As such, appellant cannot be considered a principal by
inducement. Neither can appellant be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. By his proven acts, appellant
could be held liable only as an accomplice.

 As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence the determination of the liability of the
accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.

 The penalty for an accomplice in murder is one degree lower than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony.
One degree lower would be reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty
should be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty should
be taken from reclusion temporal medium, and the minimum of the penalty should be within the range of prision mayor.

Justifying Circumstances

PP v. Antonio GR144933

Facts:

Victim Jomar Ephan was having a drinking session with Reynaldo Ephan and Reynaldo Dacillo in Mandaue City when the accused
came to buy cigarettes and ordered the three to count it. But the three refused and told him to let the storekeeper count it, thus
he was rebuked and left. He returned minutes later and suddenly stabbed the victim at the back. Eduardo Juban, the barangay
tanod was awakened and learned from the group that the accused stabbed somebody. Victim Jomar Ephan sustained a wound
and died from spleen renal injury.

The defense tried to prove that accused was in the house of his friend and just went out to buy cigarettes. As a token of
friendship, he offered his cigarattes to the group but they refused. He then came back to the store to buy “pulutan”. For no
reason at all, somebody struck him with a stool hitting his left eyebrow. The deceased attempted to hit the accused but because
he was very drunk, he missed and fell to the ground then the accused immediately grabbed a knife under the table and stabbed
him.

The RTC decided that accused Jerry Antonio y Diolata is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of MURDER.

Issue: Is there self defense? NO

Ruling: No. The decision of the RTC is affirmed. Sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to
pay the heirs of the deceased Jomar C. Ephan the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and moral damages of P50, 000.00

Rationale:

The deceased who was hit at that time he was very drunk tried to hit him but missed and fell on the ground. At that point,
unlawful aggression ceased and it was no longer necessary for him to stab the deceased. His act can no longer be interpreted as
an act of self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill. The injury sustained by accused-appellant after he was allegedly struck by
a stool on the head will not entitle him to a mitigating circumstance. The alleged injury hardly qualifies as mitigating
circumstance analogous to illness or defect that would diminish the exercise of will-power.

PP v. Rubiso GR 128871

Facts:

 Prosecution eyewitness Alejandro Pulomeda testified that he went to Jaspe Metal Craft Industries (Jaspe) at Iloilo to
canvass the price of a rice thresher. He intended to ask assistance from his friend, Serafin Hubines who was working at
Jaspe. Then, he went straight and saw Hubines busy putting a bolt on a rice thresher. While he was walking toward
Hubines' direction, he saw herein appellant also approaching Hubines' from behind. He noticed that appellant's left hand
was wrapped with a towel. As appellant walked closer to Hubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of
unknown caliber, and shot Hubines. The latter still managed to stand but he was again successively shot by appellant.
Pulomeda was shocked and frozen by what he witnessed. After a few minutes, he managed to run out of the Jaspe's
compound and went back home. On the following morning, nonetheless, he went to see the father of Hubines and
narrated to him everything he saw. Hubines arrived at the hospital clinically dead. He was twice operated but in vain. Dr.
Doromal testified that he found six (6) bullet wounds on the body of the victim. One bullet wound in the right forehead,
another bullet on the left side of the neck and four bullet wounds in the thoraco abdominal region. His findings led him to
conclude that two bullet wounds were inflicted by the assailant while standing behind the victim.

Apellant’s version

 Appellant has been working as a welder at the Jaspe Light and Steel Industries. While he was welding a tiller, Serafin
Hubines, Jr. passed by and kicked it. When he confronted appellant, the latter asked, "Why, do you want to right?" Then
Hubines boxed appellant on his chest. He fell down on a sitting position. At that point, Hubines pulled his gun. Appellant
immediately stood up and held Hubines' hands. They grappled for its possession and both fell on the ground. Then the gun
exploded. According to appellant, he was not sure who "caused" the shot. He noticed that many people approached them.
Appellant lied down on his stomach and covered his ears. That was the time he heard three or more shots. He stood up
and saw Hubines lying on the ground full of blood. He walked a few steps and met PO3 Danilo Opong. Appellant told the
latter that he was only defending himself.

The trial court rendered a decision convicting accused Jimmy Rubiso is guilty of the crime of Murder.
Issue:

WoN Rubiso had acted in self-defense when he shot Hubines No

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the trial court finding appellant JIMMY RUBISO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that he is further ordered to pay the heirs of the decease damages.

Rationale:

Assuming that Hubines had a gun and pulled it, however, records show that he did not manifest any aggressive act which may
have imperiled the life and limb of herein appellant. The location and presence of gunshot wounds on the body of the victim
eloquently refute appellant's allegation of self-defense. It is an oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds,
their location and their seriousness would negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of
any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring without risk to the aggressor the commission of the crime. There being
treachery, appellant must be convicted of murder.

People v. Lansang GR 131815

Facts:

The prosecution established that while Vidal Larita was visiting his son, Antonio Larita in Sogod, Leyte. Pablo Lansang and his wife
passed by and invited them to attend the seventh day novena prayer for his mother-in-law, the wife of Nene Mendez. Vidal
Larita declined since he was avoiding Nene Mendez whom he had an altercation. Lansang’s wife was persistent, so the victim
went with his son. He attended the orayer and partook of the food and drink that were served thereafter. Antonio left his father
at Mendez’s house still engaged in a drinking spree. Hours later, Antonio heard Lansang’s voice shouting “ayaw paikyasa”.
Immediately, he went to Mendez’s house and saw his father being attacked by Lansang, Nene Mendez and others. His father was
able run to away, while Antonio returned to his house. Meanwhile, Vidal Larita went to the house of Sulpicio and Juana Olaco
and recounted to them that he had been in a fight with Nene Mendez. Moments later, Lansang and Murial arrived, carrying
unsheathed bolos. They greeted Larita good evening, which the latter acknowledged. Suddenly, Murial hacked Larita's arm with
his bolo. Lansang then stabbed the victim several times. The victim ran away while his assailants pursued him. When he was
about ten meters away, the victim fell.

The trial court decided that Pablo Lansang is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER.

Issue: Whether or not there was defense of a relative No

Ruling: Accused-appellant Pablo Lansang is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, instead of Murder
and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Rationale:

The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative can only be raised where there is a concurrence of the requisites of unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression and that the person making the defense had no
part in the provocation. In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses testified that after the fight between Vidal Larita and Nene
Mendez, Larita immediately ran away. The unlawful aggression ceased from that moment. Therefore, accused-appellant's use of
force was completely unjustified as there was no more hostility to be repelled.