AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; DWELLING

PEOPLE VS MORI

G.R. No. L-23511 and L-23512 January 31, 1974

AQUINO, J.:

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao
finding Mori, Oto, Tiwaro, Mongkil, Lapnayan, Tot and Pok guilty of three
separate murders, sentencing each of them to three penalties of reclusion perpetua
for the killing of Teresita Luad, Leticia Luad and Martina Culao.

The mise-en-scene was the abode of the Luad. Diamente saw Mori, Tiwaro,
Lapnayan, Mongkil, and Oto going up the house. Lapnayan, Oto and Mongkil
guarded the stairs, while Tiwaro, armed with a kris, and Mori, armed with a gun,
went upstairs.

Mori admitted after arrest that he and other Bilaans participated in the killing
at Diamante's house. However, he claimed that he only butchered a pig upon the
order of Tiwaro.

The trial court convicted the accused on "multiple murder", a complex

crime, but then it imposed three distinct reclusion perpetuas for three separate
murders thus, in effect, discarding the complex nature of the offenses.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred and appellants' guilt has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:

No. The trial court's conviction of the accused of three separate offenses
should not be disturbed.

The Solicitor General relevantly stressed that what is crucial "is the fact that
Pio Diamante saw and recognized appellants as the persons who came to his house
and killed the victims".

The killings were attended with the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

abuse of superiority, dwelling and band (cuadrilla).

The death penalty is imposable on the appellants because the aggravating

circumstance of dwelling justifies the imposition in the maximum period of the
penalty for murder which is reclusion temporal maximum to death.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is modified by raising the

indemnity for each of the three murders to P12,000 and declaring that each
appellant (except Pok and Mongkil) is solidarily liable therefor.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; DWELLING [XXX]

PEOPLE VS BASA

G.R. No. 237349

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

Basa was charged with one violation each of Article 266-A, paragraphs (1)
and (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610.

Criminal Case No. 04-0200:

On or about a date prior to December 25, 2002 in Parañaque City, Basa

actuated by lust, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, insert his
[finger] into the genitalia of a minor, by means of force, threat or intimidation,
against her will and consent.

Criminal Case No. 04-0201

On or about a date prior to December 31, 2002 in Parañaque City, Basa

actuated by lust, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, have carnal
knowledge of a minor, through force, threat or intimidation, against her will and
consent.

AAA testified that Basa raped her on two (2) occasions. Both occasions took
place inside the office of "Ka Eddie," an Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) pastor, located at
the second floor of the INC church.

On July 27, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Basa guilty of the
crime of rape on the two cases.

In a Decision dated September 28, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification

the RTC Decision.
 Basa filed a supplemental brief.

According to Basa, AAA's testimony is too incredible and full of inconsistencies to

merit faith and credence, she should have struggled or, at least, shouted for help.
The medical report also shows "no evident sign of extra genital injuries and the
hymen, intact Thus, physical evidence belies AAA's claims that he inserted his
finger and penis inside her vagina.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lower courts erred in its decisions.

HELD:

No. the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the rulings of the RTC and
the CA finding him guilty of the acts charged against him. However Basa should
be held liable for Lascivious Conduct in Criminal Case No. 04-0200, instead of
rape.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

Decisions of the lower courts are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS [xxx]

People vs. Torres

G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals which modified
Bobby Torres and Roberto Torres y Nava crime of murder to the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.

On or about September 21, 2001, in the City of Manila, the accused armed
with bladed weapons, conspiring and confederating together and helping one
another, blocked JAIME M. ESPINO’s path and grabbed his belt-bag. Jaime
resisted prompting the accused to stab him which caused his death.

The RTC finds accused Bobby Torres y Nava, of the crime of Murder as the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The crime of robbery not
having been indubitably established, the accused cannot be convicted of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence,

appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA found that the primary intention of appellant and his co-accused was
to rob Espino and his killing was only incidental to the robbery thus modified the
RTC decision making the accused guilty of the crime of ROBBERY with
HOMICIDE.

Hence, this present appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acquittal of the accused-appellant in the robbery charge

should be left undisturbed as being final and executory which cannot be overturned
without violating the proscription against double jeopardy.

HELD:

The appeal is unmeritorious.

In an appeal by an accused, he waives his right not to be subject to double

jeopardy. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any
question including one not raised by the parties. When an accused appeals from the
sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double
jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court,
which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate,
whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.

WHEREFORE, Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with

further MODIFICATIONS.
US VS. TORIDA

G.R. Nos. 7450, 7451 & 7452. September 18, 1912.

TRENT, J.:

FACTS:

This is an appeal to the decision of the Court of First Instance of the First
Judicial District charging appellant with three separate crimes of estafa in three
separate actions.

Torida is a councilman of the town of Aparri. He ordered a payment of 5

pesos as fine for the death of a large animal without any law backing it. Damaso
Rabilas, Bonifacio Rante, Santiago Rante and Filipe Rante paid the fee for they
believed that the municipality provided that there is a fine.

Appellant insists that the trial court erred, in finding that there were present
in the commission of these crimes the aggravating circumstances numbers 10, 11,
and 18 of article 10 of the Penal Code and in imposing the penalty set forth in
article 399 of said code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is Abuse of Confidence.

HELD:

None. We agree with counsel that the aggravating circumstances mentioned

in numbers 10 and 18, supra, are not present because there is nothing to show that
the crimes were committed with abuse of confidence.

There were no confidential relations between the appellant and the injured
parties. Not because the people elected him means that there is abuse of confidence
in his crime. The parties must be immediate and personal and such as would give
the accused person some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act.

The penalty is, therefore, reduced to four months. In all other respects the
judgments appealed from are affirmed, with costs against the Appellant. So
ordered.
NIGHT TIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, BAND

PEOPLE VS GA

G.R. No. L-49831 June 27, 1990

GANCAYCO, J.:

FACTS:

On 10 August 1977 Emesto Ga y Esplanade, Alfredo Endencio y Salvador

and Reynaldo Ruga y Resurreccion alias Reynaldo Bustamante y Mutas were
found GUILTY of the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide and sentenced to each suffer the penalty of DEATH THRICE.

The above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and

mutually helping and aiding one another, at nighttime, with intent of gain, and by
means of force, violence and intimidation stole 160 pesos worth of items from
Bonifacio a houseboy of the Gonzaga family, and with the intent to kill to enable
their criminal act killed Juliana Gonzaga y de la Rama, Julio Gonzaga y Cuison,
and Andres Larion alias Jessica and inflicting stab wounds to one Rogelia Gonzaga
y de la Rama.

The accused pleaded guilty but appealed that night time should not be an
aggravating circumstance and that it was done by a band.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Night time and band be used as an aggravating circumstance.

HELD:
 Commission of crime by a band is not proper in this case.

A band consists of at least four malefactors who are all armed. In this case
there were only three perpetrators and two weapons.

While night time as found by the trial court, it is clearly establish that the
accused waited until midnight to execute their designs and took advantage of the
cover of darkness to avoid discovery, minimize the risk of capture and facilitate
their escape. The application of nocturnity is proper

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED

RECEDIVISM

PEOPLE VS LAGARTO

G.R. No. 65833 May 6, 1991

PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

On May 25, 1983, Reynaldo Aducal was fatally stabbed. The accused
Eugenio Lagarto y Getalado, Jr. was charged in an amended information with the
crime of Murder.

Accused is a recidivist, having been previously convicted by final judgment

of another crime embraced in the same title- Murder.

Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of guilty. The Court sentenced

said accused to the extreme penalty of DEATH.

The counsel de oficio recommends that the sentence be modified.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court correctly appreciated the existence of

recidivism.

HELD:

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
of the Revised Penal Code. Herein accused had been convicted of the crime of
homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 before the trial of the present Criminal Case
No. 1566.

Accused was convicted of homicide on September 15, 1983. There being no

appeal, the judgment therein became final on October 11, 1983. The second
conviction was rendered on October 26, 1983 for Murder. Hence, it is crystal clear
that the accused is a recidivist: the accused had been convicted by final judgment
at the time of the rendition of the judgment for the second offense.

WHEREFORE, the court's judgment is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant

EUGENIO LAGARTO y GETALADO is hereby CONVICTED of homicide.
 PEOPLE VS LACAO SR.

G.R. No. 95320 September 4, 1991

REGALADO, J.:

FACTS:

Accused BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., PATRIA LACAO and TRINIDAD

LACAO MANSILLA were charged with the complex crime of murder with direct
assault upon an agent of a person in authority.

On or about the 28th day of September, 1985, at around 10:00 o'clock in the
evening in the province of Capiz, Brgy. Manibad. The above-named accused
armed with knives and wooden stools, conspiring, with evident premeditation,
treachery and taking advantage of night time and superior strength attack POLICE
CORPORAL JOSE G. INOCENCIO, JR., which cause his death.

Accused Baltazar Lacao, Sr., alias "Bantan", has been previously convicted
by final judgment of the crime of homicide. He admitted killing the victim but
interposed self-defense.

After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment convicting the three appellants
of the crime charged, imposing on them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

They appealed. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. admitted during the trial that he was once
convicted of the crime of homicide but he was granted an absolute pardon therefor

ISSUE:

Whether or not Baltazar Lacao Sr. is a recidivist.

HELD:

The lower court properly considered recidivism since a pardon for a

preceding offense does not obliterate the fact that the accused is a recidivist upon
his conviction of a second offense embraced in the same title of the Code.

This aggravating circumstance of recidivism accordingly offsets the

mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender by Baltazar Lacao, Sr.

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modifications, the judgment of the trial

court is hereby AFFIRMED.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

PEOPLE VS ONG

G.R. No. L-37908 October 23, 1981

FACTS:

Benjamin Ong was the last person with Henry Chua before the
disappearance of the latter on the night of April 23, 1971. NBI tried to contact
Ong. Ong also disappeared.

On August 29, 1971, he was apprehended but he denied knowledge about

Chua but when he was turned over to the NBI for investigation, he unhesitatingly
confessed and implicated Bienvienido Quintos as one of his companions in the
crime and the latter pointed to Fernando Tan and Baldomero Ambrosio.

Both Ong and Quintos were sentenced to death for kidnapping and murder.at
the court of Pasig.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is evident premeditation

HELD:

Yes. There is.

Evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes, because the accused
meditated, planned, and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo is REVERSED and SET

ASIDE.
 PEOPLE VS PENONES

G.R. No. 71153 August 16, 1991

NARVASA, J.:

FACTS:

Tomas Oronan died a violent death at the hands of four (4) persons who
attacked him with bamboo spears (guhi), bows and arrows, and big stones.

EFREN PEÑONES, OSCAR PEÑONES, FROILAN PEÑONES, and ANDRES

PEÑONES, the four brothers were charged in the Court of First Instance at Ligao,
Albay,with the felony of murder, attended by evident premeditation and taking
advantage of superior strength.

ISSUE:

Whether there is evident premeditation.

HELD:

No there is none.

The manner of the commission of the crime by the four (4) appellants
establishes the existence of a conspiracy among them. But, as the Trial Court
states, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may not be
appreciated against them absent any proof "as to how and when the plan to kill was
hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, is AFFIRMED in

toto,
TREACHERY

PEOPLE VS ZABALA

G.R. No. 203087, November 23, 2015

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

In the evening of December 12, 2003, at Purok 3, Mangcamagong, Basud,

Camarines Norte, EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR.
y BAUTISTA, with intent to kill, conspiring, and mutually helping each other,
with treachery and evident premeditation, box and smash with a stone the face of
one Joseph Agapay y Redondo, inflicting upon him mortal injuries which caused
his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim.

On September 29, 2010, the RTC find both guilty of murder. Appellants
appealed their case before the CA which affirmed in toto the RTC judgment.

Appellants filed this appeal seeking to annul and set aside their conviction.
They contend that the court erred and it was a reversible error to find that treachery
attended the killing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

HELD:

Yes. Treachery was involved.

Witness Cesar saw appellant Romeo suddenly put his left arm on Joseph's
shoulder and instantly boxed him while appellant Edgardo was holding Joseph's
hands from behind.
 There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense that the offended party might make.

Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the
employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was
deliberately and consciously adopted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.

 PEOPLE VS NAZARENO

G.R. No. 196434 : October 24, 2012

ABAD, J.:

FACTS:

The accused Chito Nazareno and Fernando Saliendra, a barangay tanod,

were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court qualified by abuse of
superior strength and aggravated by treachery.

9:30 in the evening while David, Francisco and their friend Aida Unos were
walking, Nazareno and Saliendra blocked their path, and box Francisco who fled
and later witness Nazareno hit David with a stick and Salienda struck his head with
a stone. David was brought to the hospital but later died due to blunt trauma.

Court of Appeals affirmed RTC with modification removing treachery.

Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength

attended the killing of David

HELD:

Yes there is abuse of superior strength, when the aggressors purposely use
excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The notorious
inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor. Nazareno and
Saliendra evidently armed themselves beforehand,aided by some unnamed
barangay tanods, Nazareno and Saliendra exploited their superior advantage and
knocked the defenseless David unconscious.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
IGNOMINY

PEOPLE VS JOSE

G.R. No. L-28232 February 6, 1971

FACTS:

On June 26, 1967, four (4) principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr.,
alias “Boy”, Eduardo Aquino Alias “Eddie” and Rogelio Cañal; together with
Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon and Jessie Guion as accomplices, conspired
together to abduct then later raped Magdalena de la vera a 25 year old actress by
means of intimidation and force.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused of the crime of forcible

abduction with rape as described under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and
imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is the Aggravating circumstance of Ignominy

HELD:

Yes there is.

The appellants in ordering the complaint to exhibit to them her complete

nakedness for ten minutes before raping her, brought about a circumstance which
tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating.

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows:

appellants Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are
pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
 PEOPLE VS BALONDO

[G.R. No. L-27401. October 31, 1969.]

ZALDIVAR, J.:

FACTS:

The Court of First Instance of Leyte found the defendant Diego Balondo
guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of
death.

On 29th day of September, 1966, in the Municipality of Kawayan,

Subprovince of Biliran, Province of Leyte, Balondo with deliberate intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and strangle one Gloria Bulasa her 16 years old
niece causing her instant death.

After that he dragged her body, chopped some parts then barbecued it and
eat it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not here is Ignominy

HELD:

No. Ignominy is not a present.

The Trial Court erred when it declared that ignominy is present. We find nothing in
the record which shows that before the deceased Gloria Bulasa died she was
subjected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is modified. The defendant is

sentenced to reclusión perpetua.
CRUELTY

PEOPLE VS MARIQUINIA [XXX]

404 error