PEOPLE v.

DOMINGO
March 2, 2009 (G.R. No. 184343)

FACTS:

On or about the 29th day of March 2000, complainant and her children were sleeping inside
their house when Domingo when the accused entered their kitchen armed with a screwdriver
and a kitchen knife. He stabbed the complainant and her children. Raquel Indon, complainant,
pleaded the appellant to spare her daughter but teh appellant answered “Ngayon pa, nagawa
ko na”. Two of her children died.
Five years passed, the defense counsel said that nine days prior the commission of the crime,
appellant suffered sleeplessness, lack of appetite, and nervousness. Occasionally, a voice would
tell him to kill. Appellant averred that when he regained his memory, one week had already
passed since the incidents, and he was already detained. They submitted a psychiatric
evaluation, and psychological examination as evidence that appellant suffered from
Schizophrenia, a mental disorder characterized by the presence of delusions and or
hallucinations, disorganized speech and behavior, poor impulse control and low frustration
tolerance. The doctor could not find out when the appellant started to suffer this illness, but
the symptoms of Schizophrenia which were manifested by the patient indicated that he
suffered from the illness six months before the Center examined the appellant. The counsel of
the appellant raised the defense of insanity of the appellant.

ISSUE: WON the appellant is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of insanity.

HELD:
No, the defense of insanity is unmeritorious. Insanity exempts the accused only when the
finding of mental disorder refers to appellant’s state of mind immediately before or at the very
moment of the commission of the crime. This was not the case in the issue at bar, what was
presented was proof of appellant’s mental disorder that existed five years after the incident, but
not at the time the crimes were committed. The RTC also considered it crucial that appellant
had the presence of mind to respond to Raquel Indon’s pleas that her daughters be spared by
saying, “Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na.”
Even assuming that nine days prior the crime the appellant was hearing voices ordering him to
kill people, while suggestive of an abnormal mental condition, cannot be equated with a total
deprivation of will or an absence of the power to discern. Mere abnormality of mental faculties
will not exclude imputability.
The law presumes every man to be of sound mind. Otherwise stated, the law presumes that all
acts are voluntary, and that it is improper to presume that acts are done unconsciously. Thus, a
person accused of a crime who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity has the burden of
proving beyond reasonable doubt that he or she was insane immediately before or at the
moment the crime was committed.

Padua vs. People of the Philippines

GR 168546 (July 23, 2008)
Facts:
Petitioner, who was then 17 years old, was involved in selling illegal drugs. Initially in
his arraignment he pleaded not guilty but re-entered his plea of guilty to avail the benefits of
first
time offenders. Subsequently, he applied for probation but was denied. In his petition
for certiorari, the court said that probation and suspension of sentence are different and
provisions in PD 603 or RA 9344 cannot be invoked to avail probation. It is specifically
stated that in drug trafficking,application for probation should be denied. As aside issue,
the court discussed the availment of suspension of sentence under RA 9344.
ISSUE
Whether suspension of sentence under RA9344 can still be invoked given the fact that
the accused is now 21 years old.
HELD
NO. The suspension of sentence under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer
be retroactively applied for petitioner s benefit.  Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that
once a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
the law under suspended sentence. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however,provides
that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the court shall determine whether
to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence
for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
Petitioner has already reached 21years of age or over and thus, could no longer be
considered a child for purposes of applying Rep.Act 9344. Thus, the application of
Sections 38 and40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned

Valcesar Estioca vs. People

GR 173876 (June 27, 2008)
Nazario., J.
Facts:
A number of persons were accused of conspiring and robbing an elementary school.
One of which is Boniao who was 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
On 28 July 2001 (Saturday), at about 8:00 in the morning, Nico, then eleven years old
and a Grade VI student of Ozamiz City Central School (OCCS), and his cousin, Mark
Alforque (Mark), went to the OCCS and cleaned the classroom of a teacher named Mrs.
Myrna Pactolin (Mrs. Pactolin). Nico saw petitioner and Bacus enter the OCCS’s
premises by climbing over the OCCS’s gate. Petitioner and Bacus then proceeded to the
classroom of another teacher, Mrs. Panal, which was located near the OCCS’s canal.
Thereupon, petitioner and Bacus destroyed the padlock of the classroom’s door using an
iron bar and entered therein. Subsequently, petitioner and Bacus walked out of the
classroom carrying a television, a karaoke and an electric fan, and thereafter brought
them to the school gate. They went over the gate with the items and handed them over
to Boniao and Handoc who were positioned just outside the OCCS’s gate. The items
were placed inside a tricycle. After petitioner, Bacus and Boniao boarded the tricycle,
Handoc drove the same and they sped away. They were found guilty by the lower court.
When the case was appealed to the CA, RA 9344 took effect and Boniao was acquitted
since he was a minor at the time of the crime but without prejudice to his civil liability.
Custody was given to his parents.
ISSUE:
Whether RA 9344 can retroact to Boniao’s case.
HELD:
Yes, the reckoning point in considering minority is the time of the commission of the
crime. In this case Boniao is 14 years old hence exempted from criminal liability without
prejudice to his civil liability. Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws
may be given retroactive effect if they are in favor of the accused.

G.R. No. 176102               November 26, 2014

ROSAL HUBILLA y CARILLO, Petitioner, 
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the petitioner with homicide
under the following information docketed as Criminal Case No. 2000-0275 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 20, in Naga City, to wit:

That on or about the 30th day of March, 2000 at about 7:30 P.M., in Barangay Dalupaon,
Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with intent to kill, and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one JAYSON ESPINOLA Y BANTA with a knife ,
inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds in his body, thus, directly causing his death to the
damage and prejudice of the deceased’s heirs in such amount as may be proven in court.

ISSUES:

 Whether or not the CA imposed the correct penalty imposable on him taking into
consideration the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised Penal
Codeand Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law);
 Whether or not he was entitled to the benefits of probation and suspension of sentence
under Republic Act No. 9344; and
 Whether or not imposing the penalty of imprisonment contravened the provisions of
Republic Act No. 9344 and other international agreements.

HELD:

The petitioner’s insistence is bereft of legal basis. Neither the Revised Penal Code, nor Republic
Act No. 9344, nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the
maximum of the indeterminate sentence.

Conformably with Section 9(a) of Presidential Decree 968,12 which disqualifies from probation
an offender sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years, the
petitioner could not qualify for probation. Hence, the Court annulled the directive of the CA to
remand the case to the trial court to determine if he was qualified for probation.

Lastly, according to the Supreme Court, the trial and appellate courts did not violate the letter
and spirit of Republic Act No. 9344 by imposing the penalty of imprisonment on the petitioner
simply because the penalty was imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be disqualified
from probation and from the suspension of his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was
for the shortest duration permitted by the law.\

The Court DENIED the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMED the amended decision
promulgated on December 7, 2006 in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 29295, but DELETED the order to remand
the judgment to the trial court for implementation; and DIRECTED the Bureau of Corrections to
commit the petitioner for the service of his sentence in an agricultural camp or other training
facilities under its control, supervision and management, in coordination with the Department
of Social Welfare and Development.

G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERGEL ANCAJAS AND

ALLAIN* ANCAJAS, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS:

That on the 16th day of July 1998, between the hours of 8:00 to 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at
the house of the victim at Taytayan, Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, confederating and conspiring
with one another, with deliberate intent, by means of force and violence by boxing her on the
stomach thereby rendering her unconscious, with intimidation and lewd design, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with AAA, while she was in a
state of unconsciousness.

Appellants claim that based on AAA's testimony, the element of carnal knowledge was not
established since she claimed to be unconscious, hence, she would not know the act allegedly
done to her; that she only believed that they had carnal knowledge of her because she felt pain
on her vagina.

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellants' guilt for the
crime of rape.

HELD:
The Court found no error committed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in giving credence to
AAA's testimony. Accordingly, it was put down in record that AAA was crying while she was
testifying before the trial court. It has been held in several cases that the crying of a victim
during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such
emotion indicates the pain the victim feels when she recounts the detail of her traumatic
experience.

The Court did not availed the alibi of the appellants. Accordingly, for alibi to prosper, it does not
suffice to prove that the accused was at another place when the crime was committed, but it
must also be shown that there was physical impossibility for him to have been at the scene of
the crime.

The Court found that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

The Decision dated April 27, 2011 of the Court of Appeals Cebu City, issued in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-
HC No. 00857 was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Vergel Ancajas was imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. In view of the privileged mitigating circumstance appreciated in
favor of appellant Allain Ancajas, and the absence of other modifying circumstances attendant
to the crime, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty often (10) years and one day of prision
mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal medium, as maximum.

[G.R. NO. 133541. April 14, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RICKY QUIMZON, Appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about the 7thday of March, 1992, in the Municipality of Burauen, Province of Leyte,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and helping one another with treachery and abuse of superior
strength, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack,
assault, strike, stab and wound one Marlo Casiong with short bolos locally known as pisao
which accused provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said
Marlo Casiong with fatal wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death
shortly thereafter.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Regional Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte erred in finding the accused guilty of the
crime of murder without a Corpus Delicti.

Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to Emolyns testimony over and above
the testimonies of the defense witnesses.

HELD:

The court ruled that the testimony of Dr. Asperin is not indispensable in proving the corpus
delicti. Even without her testimony, the prosecution was still be able to prove the corpus delicti
by establishing the fact that the victim died and that such death occurred after he was stabbed
by appellant and his co-accused.

The Court was not persuaded when the appellant posited that Emolyns delay puts the
trustworthiness of her testimony in serious doubt. Accordingly, when the credibility of
witnesses is in issue, appellate courts generally defer to the findings of the trial court,
considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
After going over the records of the case, the Court found no compelling reason to disturb the
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of Emolyn. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City (Branch
15) with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Ricky Quimzon is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of MURDER and after applying The Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being
no modifying circumstance, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment, from eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayoras MINIMUM up to fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months of
reclusion temporalas MAXIMUM.

He is ordered to pay Erlinda Casiong, the mother of the deceased Marlo Casiong, the amounts
of P50,000. 00 as civil indemnity for the victims death; P25,000. 00 as temperate damages; and
P50,000. 00 as moral damages.
 [G.R. NO. 126171 - March 11, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FEDERICO GENITA, JR. y CULTURA, Appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about the evening of December 17, 1991 in Barangay Bugsukan, Butuan City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot with the use of a high powered firearm one
Jesus Bascon thereby hitting him on both legs, and Reynaldo Timbal who was hit on his head
which caused their subsequent death.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the exempting
circumstance of accident interposed by the accused-appellant

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery despite failure of the prosecution to prove its attendance on the assumption that the
killing of the victim was not accidental.

HELD:

According to the Supreme Court, the requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance were
not proven. First, appellants manner of carrying his M-14 rifle negates his claim of "due care" in
the performance of an act. Second, the number of wounds sustained by the victims shows that
the shooting was not merely accidental. And third, appellant manifested an unmistakable intent
to kill the victims when he reloaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them.
Hence, the decision of the trial court was MODIFIED in the sense that appellant is hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two crimes of homicide. He was sentenced to suffer (10)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for each crime of homicide.
G.R. No. 45186           September 30, 1936

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
JOSEFINA BANDIAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

At about 7 o'clock in the morning of January 31, 1936, Valentin Aguilar, the appellant's
neighbor, saw the appellant go to a thicket about four or five brazas from her house, apparently
to respond to a call of nature because it was there that the people of the place used to go for
that purpose. A few minutes later, he again saw her emerge from the thicket with her clothes
stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being
able to support herself. He ran to her aid and, having noted that she was very weak and dizzy,
he supported and helped her go up to her house and placed her in her own bed. Upon being
asked before Aguilar brought her to her house, what happened to her, the appellant merely
answered that she was very dizzy. Not wishing to be alone with the appellant in such
circumstances, Valentin Aguilar called Adriano Comcom, who lived nearby, to help them, and
later requested him to take bamboo leaves to stop the hemorrhage which had come upon the
appellant. Comcom had scarcely gone about five brazas when he saw the body of a newborn
baby near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before.
Comcom informed Aguilar of it and latter told him to bring the body to the appellant's house.
Upon being asked whether the baby which had just been shown to her was hers or not, the
appellant answered in the affirmative.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in charging the appellant with the crime of infanticide,
convicted thereof and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and the corresponding accessory
penalties.

HELD:
In conclusion, taking into account the foregoing facts and considerations, and granting that the
appellant was aware of her involuntary childbirth in the thicket and that she later failed to take
her child therefrom, having been so prevented by reason of causes entirely independent of her
will, it should be held that the alleged errors attributed to the lower court by the appellant are
true; and it appearing that under such circumstances said appellant has the fourth and seventh
exempting circumstances in her favor, is hereby acquitted of the crime of which she had been
accused and convicted, with costs de oficio, and she is actually confined in jail in connection
with this case, it is ordered that she be released immediately. So ordered.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, 

vs.
NOEL T. SALES, Appellant

G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011

FACTS:

On September 19, 2002, brothers Noemar and Junior (Noel Jr.), then nine and eight years old,
respectively, left their home without the permission of their parents. Their mother, Maria Litan
Sales, looked for them. When she found them, she convinced the two to go home. On Sept. 20,
2002 at around 8 o’clock in the evening, Noemar and Junior went home. Their father
(appellant, Noel Sales), who was furious about them for leaving home without permission and
upon knowing that they stole a pedicab, confronted them, whipped them with a stick, tied their
hands and feet in a coconut tree and continued beating them with a thick piece of wood.
Noemar suffered injuries in his head and legs, and Junior, got injuries in the right portion of his
head, left cheek, and legs. Shortly after the beating, Noemar collapsed and lost consciousness.
Maria tried to revive him but he was already dead. She told his husband about it but he did not
believe her. She told him then to call a quack doctor. He left and returned with one, who
advised them to bring Noemar to a hospital. Noel thus proceeded to take Noemar to the
junction and waited for a vehicle to take them to a hospital. As there was no vehicle, and
another quack doctor they met at the junction told them that their son is already dead, Noel,
decided to just bring Noemar back to their house.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

HELD:

1. The appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt having committed the crime of parricide.
As defined in Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code "Parricide is committed when: (1) a person
is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant,
or the legitimate spouse of accused."

In the case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the first element, that is, a
person was killed. Maria testified that her son Noemar did not regain consciousness after the
severe beating he suffered from the hands of his father. Thereafter, a quack doctor declared
Noemar dead. Afterwards, as testified to by Maria, they held a wake for Noemar the next day
and then buried him the day after. Noemars Death Certificate was also presented in evidence.

As to the crime of slight physical injuries, indeed Noel Sales is guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
the Court give full faith and credence to the categorical and positive testimony of Junior that he
was beaten by his father and that by reason thereof he sustained injuries, and the same was
corroborated by his mother testimony, and supported by medical examination.

G.R. No. 148518             April 15, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, 

vs.
NARCISO SALDAÑA (At Large), ELMER ESGUERRA (At Large), FERNANDO MORALES, and
ARTURO MALIT, accused,
FERNANDO MORALES and ARTURO MALIT, appellants.

FACTS:

On November 9, 1994, Narciso Saldaña, Elmer Esguerra, Fernando Morales and Arturo Malit
conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another to abduct and kidnap Jefferson C.
Tan, Joanna C. Tan, Jessie Anthony C. Tan, Malou Ocampo and Cesar Quiroz, while on board in
an L-300 van with Plate No. CKW-785 at San Vicente, Bacolor, Pampanga, for the purpose of
extorting ransom money from their parents and threatened to kill their parents if failed to
deliver the ransom money. The victims were brought and detained in Bataan until, Feliciano
Tan, their father, paid and delivered to the accused the amount of ₱92,000.00, Philippine
Currency.

ISSUES:

(1) whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating in appellants' favor the defense of
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury;
(2) whether or not conspiracy was adequately proven; and

(3) whether or not appellants' guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

1. The Supreme Court held that a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom as provided under Article 12 of
the Revised Penal Code, and in order that the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it
is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or
self-defense in equal combat. 

Appellant's Malit and Morales contention that they acted due to an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury due to Bautista's threat against him and to their families were not of
such imminence as to preclude any chance of escape. Under the circumstances, even if true,
the fear that appellants allegedly suffered would not suffice to exempt them from incurring
criminal liability.

2. Based on the evidence at hand, the Court finds no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court's
assessment of the defense presented by appellants. The crime of kidnapping is not committed
on impulse. It requires meticulous planning to determine who would be the prospective victim
or victims. Its execution needs precise timing and coordination among the malefactors. It is
improbable that a group of kidnappers would risk the success of their well-planned criminal
scheme by involving unwilling persons, much less strangers, who could abort the kidnapping by
refusing to cooperate in its execution. Thus, we find the defense claimed by appellants neither
logical nor satisfactory, much less consistent with human experience and knowledge. For this
reason, we also agree that appellants' version of the facts is unworthy of credence, in the light
of candid testimonies given by prosecution witnesses.

3. The Court found no reason to reverse the trial court's judgment of conviction. A thorough
review of the evidence presented in this case leads to no other conclusion than that the crime
of kidnapping for ransom as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code has
been committed beyond reasonable doubt against the victims Jefferson C. Tan, Jessie C. Tan,
Joanna C. Tan, Malou Ocampo, and Cesar Quiroz.
GR. No. 165111, July 21, 2006

ROBERTO E. CHANG and PACIFICO D. SAN MATEO, petitioners, 

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Roberto Estanislao Chang, a public officer being the incumbent Municipal Treasurer of Makati,
Metro Manila is tasked to examine or investigate corporate tax returns of private corporations
or companies operating within their municipality, to determine their compliance and/or
insufficiency of Income Tax Assessments, and to collect payments corresponding thereto. While
in the performance of his official duties, he found out that Group Developer's Inc.(GDI), is owing
their municipality in the form of tax liabilities an amount of Four Hundred Ninety Four Thousand
Pesos (P494,000.00). He conspired and confederated with other public officials of Municipal
Treasurer's Office, Makati, Metro Manila namely Pacifico Domingo San Mateo and Leoncito
Feraren holding positions as Chief of Operations Business Revenue Examination, Audit Division
and Driver-Clerk respectively. They demanded an amount of One Hundred Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (P125, 000) from GDI through its employee Mario Magat in consideration of
the issuance of a Certificate of Examination that it had "no tax liability". The GDI reported the
incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as part of an entrapment operation
against the said individuals. The Sandigan Bayan convicted Chang and San Mateo while Ferraren
was acquitted. Chang and Mateo proffered that what transpired was not an entrapment but
instigation, which is an absolutory cause in criminal prosecution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the incident is an entrapment or instigation?

HELD:

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension
of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the
accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the
origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the
criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law
officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused that adopts the idea
and carries it into execution.

From the evidence for the prosecution, it was clearly established that the criminal intent
originated from the minds of petitioners. Even before the June 19, 1991 meeting took place,
petitioners already made known to Magat that GDI only had two options to prevent the closure
of the company, either to pay the assessed amount of  P494, 601.11 to the
Municipality, or pay the amount of P125,000 to them.
G.R. No. L-12883          November 26, 1917 (37 Phil. 201)

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
CLEMENTE AMPAR, defendant-appellant
FACTS:

A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy, municipality of San Carlos, Negros

Occidental. Roast pig was being served. The accused Clemente Ampar, 70 years old, proceeded
to the kitchen and asked Modesto Patobo for some of the delicacy. Patobo's answer was; "There
is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you." With this as the provocation, a little
later while the said Modesto Patobo was squatting down, the accused came up behind him and
struck him on the head with an ax, causing death the following day.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused should be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance for the
provocation or threat made unto him.

HELD:

The offense which the defendant was trying to vindicate would be considered a mere
trifle to the average person but it was evidently a serious matter to be made the butt of a joke
for the old man. Hence, Supreme Court believed that the lower court properly gave defendant
the benefit of a mitigating circumstance, and correctly sentenced him to the minimum degree
of the penalty provided for the crime of murder.

PEOPLE VS. REBUCAN

GR NO. 182551
July 27, 2011

FACTS:

In the Municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippines, Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin, the
accused, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength. Did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
wound Felipe Lagera y Obero, 65 years old and Ranil Tagpis y Lagera, 1 year old, with the use of
long bolo (sundang) which the accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting
upon Felipe Lagera:
Hypovolemic shock, massive blood loss and multiple hacking wounds, head, which wounds
caused the death of Felipe Lagera y Obera and Ranil Tagpis y Lagera immediately thereafter.

Carmela Tagpis, the 5 year old granddaughter of the victim Felipe Lagera and sister of the victim
Ranil Tagpis Jr., testified as an eyewitness to the incident in question. She stated that Ranil was
hit in the forehead, while Felipe was hit on the face, the left shoulder and the right shoulder.
Carmela said that she saw that a long bolo was used in the killing of Felipe and and Ranil. She
related that Felipe also owned a bolo but he was not able to use the same when he was
attacked. She was there inside the house with Felipe and her two younger brothers, Jericho and
Bitoy (Ranil). She was sitting about 4 meters away when the hacking incident occurred indoors.

On the other hand, Raymond Rance, the stepson of the accused appellant, that his mother was
sexually abused by Felipe Lagera and his son Artemio alyas “Timboy”. The accused-appellant
was working in Manila when the aforesaid incidents happened. Raymond said that his mother
thereafter left for Manila. Subsequently, he saw the accused-appellant at the house of a certain
Bernie, several days after the accused-appellant arrived in Leyte. He told the accused-appellant
about the incidents involving Felipe and Timboy. 

The accused hatched a decision to avenge his wife’s sexual molestation. Days had passed, but
his decision to kill Felipe did not wither, instead it became stronger, that on the 6 th day of
November 2002, he armed himself a sharp long bolo “sundang” and went to barangay
Calampay, Carigara Leyte where the victim lived. Fueled by hatred and the spirit of London gin
after consuming one bottle with his compadre “Enok” he decided to execute his evil deeds by
going to the house of Felipe Lagera, in the guise of buying Kerosene and once inside the house,
hacked and wounded the victim, Felipe Lagera who was then holding in his arm his grandson,
one and a half years 1 ½ old, Ranil Tagpis Jr.

After the incident, the accused, Rosendo Rebucan immediately went to the house of barangay
chairman to surrender because he killed Felipe Lagera and Ranil Tagpis Jr.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
of murder.
 Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense
must be appreciated.

HELD:

 Yes. The circumstance that the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victims,
unarmed, were caught totally unprepared to defend themselves qualifies the crime
 committed as murder. The evidence of the prosecution established the fact that the
killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by treachery, thus qualifying the same to
murder. According to article 248 of the RPC, as amended, any person who shall kill
another shall be guilty of murder if the same was committed with the attendant
circumstance of treachery, among other things, and that the situation does not fall
within the provisions of Article 246.

Therefore, the accused-appellant Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin is found guilty of two (2)
counts of murder for the deaths of Felipe Lagera and Ranil Tgapis, Jr. and hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.

 As regards the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, the

same cannot likewise be appreciated in the instant case. Article 13, paragraph 5 of the
RPC requires that the act be “committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.”The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave
offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity. In the case at
bar, the accused-appellant points to the alleged attempt of Felipe and Timboy Lagera on
the virtue of his wife ass the grave offense for which he sought immediate vindication. A
period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which the accused-appellant
could have regained his composure and self-control. Thus, the said mitigating
circumstance cannot be credited in favor of the accused-appellant.

People vs. Benito

G.R. No. L- 32042
December 17, 1976
Facts:
Alberto Benito, the accused-appellant, was a former employee of the Civil Service Commission
at its main office located at P. Paredes, Sampaloc. Mla., and was assigned as clerk 2 in the
Administrative Division from Nov. 1963 continuously up to Nov. 1965 when he was suspended
for “DISHONESTY”. After two months, he was reinstated but was criminally charged for
QUALIFIED THEFT, MALVERATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, ESTAFA and FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS and administratively charged for “DISHONESTY” culminating in his dismissal from
the Civil Service on February 1966.
On October 21, 1965, the victim, Pedro Moncayo, Jr. as an administrative officer, reported to the
Commissioner of Civil Service that Benito admitted having malversed an amount between
P4,000 and P5,000 from his sales of examination fee stamps.
On December 11, 1969, the suspect went to Civil Service and requested the victim to help him
in his cases but the former allegedly uttered to the suspect “UMALIS KA NGA DIYAN BAKA MAY
MANGYARI PA SA IYO AT BAKA IPAYARI KITA DITO.”
The suspect left and returned the following morning at 11:00am, and when they met again, the
victim allegedly remarked in the presence of many people, “NAGIISTAMBAY PALA DITO ANG
MAGNANAKAW”. The suspect who was humiliated and incenced, left.
At about 5:25pm the same day, the suspect who was armed with an unlicensed Cal. 22 black
revolver loaded with nine (9) live cal.22 bullets in its cylinder, waited for the victim outside the
Civil Service compound. The victim showed up and drove his car. The suspect with evident
premeditation, surreptitiously followed the victim and when the latter’s car was at the full stop
due to heavy traffic, the suspect without any warning or provocation, suddenly and
treacherously shot the victim 8 times on the head and different parts of the body which
consequently caused the latter’s death on the spot inside his car.
The accused was sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila after he pleaded
guilty to the charge of murder for having shot with a .22 caliber revolver Moncayo on Dec. 12,
1969. The killing was qualified by treachery and aggravated by premeditation and disregard of
rank. It was mitigated by plea of guilty. After a mandatory review of the death sentence, the
Court in its decision on February 13, 1975 affirmed the judgment of conviction. It appreciated
in Benito’s favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Alberto Benito, the accused-appellant, filed a motion for reconsideration. He contends that he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense and that the
aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank should not be appreciated against him.
The SC denied his petition.

Issue:

 Whether or not the accused-appellant, Albert Benito, is entitled to the mitigating

circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense.
 Whether or not that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank should not be
appreciated against the accused-appellant.

Held:

 The Solicitor General argues that the defamatory remark imputed to Moncayo cannot
give arise to the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense because it was
not specifically directed at Benito. The remark was uttered by Moncayo at 11:00 o’clock
in the morning. The assassination was perpetrated at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon
of the same day. The six-hour interval between the alleged grave offense committed by
Moncayo against benito and the assassination was more than sufficient to enable
Benito to recover his serenity. But instead of using that time to regain his composure, he
 evolved the plan of liquidating Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally ambushed
Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the office. He acted with treachery
and evident premeditation in perpetrating the cold-blooded murder.
 It should be borne in mind that the victim was a ranking official of the Civil Servicee
Commission and that the killer was a clerk in the same office who resented the victim’s
condemnatory report against him. In that situation the existence of the aggravating
circumstance of “desprecio del respeto que por la dignidad mereciere el ofendido” is
manifest.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. AVELINA JAURIGUE

C.A. No. 384
February 21, 1946

FACTS:

Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide for killing Amando Capina on the Court of
First Instance of Tayabas in September 20, 1942. She appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging
that the lower court erred in not holding that she acted in legitimate defense of her honor and
that she should be absolved of criminal responsibility. She also claimed that the lower court
erred in not finding in her favour the additional mitigating circumstances that (a) she voluntarily
surrendered to the agents of the authority and the commission of the alleged offense was
attended by the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime in a sacred place.

Both defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived in
the barrio of Sta. Isablel, San Pablo, Laguna. Prior to the fatal night of the stabbing incident,
Amado had been courting Avelina in vain. The deceased has in many incidents employed force
to approach the defendant. In one incident, the deceased suddenly kissed and touched the
breast of the defendant because the latter flatly refused his love. In another, the deceased
surreptitiously climbed up the house and entered the room of the appellant and tried to abuse
her. During the fatal night, Amado placed his right hand on the upper part of the thigh of
Avelina after the former sat beside Avelina in church. Conscious of her personal dignity and
honor, Avelina pulled out a fan knife to punish Amado’s offending hand. Amado seized her hand
but she quickly grabbed the weapon with her other hand and stabbed Amado once at the base
of the left side of the neck, inflicting a wound about 4 ½ inches deep which killed him
immediately.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Avelina Jaurigue acted in legitimate defense of her honor and that she
should be absolved of criminal liability.

HELD:

NO. According to the facts established by the court in this case, the chapel where the
incident happened was lighted with electrical lights and there were several people inside the
chapel including the defendant’s father and local dignitaries that Avelina could cry for help for
when Amado perpetuated the abuse. Inflicting upon the deceased a wound 4 ½ inches deep in
defense of her honor is evidently excessive.
The defendant-appellant committed the crime of homicide with no aggravating
circumstances but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be
considered in her favour and in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the Revised
Penal Code, she is entitled to a reduction by one degree or two degrees of the penalty imposed
upon her.
Avelina is hereby sentenced to a penalty ranging from two months and one day of
arresto mayor as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional,
maximum with accessory penalties prescribed by law to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
the sum of P2,000.00.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FRANCISCO ABARCA
G.R. No. 74433
September 14, 1987

FACTS:

Case at bar is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte of
sentencing the accused-appellant Francisco Abarca to death for the complex crime of murder
and double frustrated murder committed against Khingsley Paul Koh and gunshot wounds to
Arnold Amparado and Lina Amparado. It is after the case was elevated to the Supreme Court
after the approval of the new Constitution abolishing the penalty of death and commuting all
existing death sentences to life imprisonment.

Deceased Kingsley Paul Koh and the accused wife, Jenny had an illicit relationship which
apparently began while Francisco was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 BAR examinations. Upon
reaching home on July 15, 1984, the accused found his wife and Khingsley Koh in the act of
sexual intercourse. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room
jumped and ran away. He went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He returned with an M-16
rifle and went the mah-jong session where Koh was hanging out. He fired at Khingsley Koh three
times causing his instantaneous death due to cardiorespiratory arrest and haemorrhage as a
result of multiple gunshot wounds on the head and abdomen. As a consequence, the shooting
also inflicted gunshot wounds to Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code defining death inflicted under
exceptional circumstances is applicable in the case at bar.

Whether or not Abarca can be held liable for frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted
upon the Amparados.

HELD:

Yes, Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code of the Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances is applicable in the case. There is no question that surprised
his wife and his paramour in the act of illicit copulation. As a result of which, he went out to kill
the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: a)
that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person; and b) that he kills any of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These
elements are present in the case. The trial court therefore erred in the accused-appellant of
murder.

No, the accused cannot be held liable for frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted
upon the Amparados. The court held that the accused-appellant was not committing murder
when he discharged the rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. However, this does not mean that the Abarca is entirely without
fault. The court nonetheless found negligence on the part of the accused for the separate
injuries suffered by the Amparados.

The Court speaking through Judge Sarmiento impose upon the accused-appellant four
months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. He is also ordered to indemnify Arnold and
Lina Amparado the sum of P16,000.00 for the hospitalization expense and the sum of P1,500.00
as and for Arnold Amparo’s loss of hearing capacity.

JOSUE R. LADIANA, petitioner, 
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 144293             December 4, 2002

FACTS:
That on or about the 29th day of December 1989, in the Municipality of Lumban, Laguna,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a
public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP now PNP) assigned at
the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is primarily to
enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position
confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were
previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street,
Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the
said street and when Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in
stopping him, said accused who was armed with a firearm, with intent to kill and with treachery,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shot Francisco San Juan with
the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds
thereby causing the death of Francisco San Juan.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan may convict the accused-petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide even in the absence of any eyewitness who personally saw the
shooting of the victim by the accused, basing it only on the testimony of the prosecutor who
had administered the oath on the Counter-affidavit filed by petitioner-accused.
Whether or not the prosecution has presented proof beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused and his right against self-incrimination
on the basis of the Counter-affidavit whose execution was admitted by the counsel of the
petitioner, but not by the accused personally.
Whether or not the Counter-affidavit of the accused-petitioner which was considered by the
Sandiganbayan in its decision as similar to an extrajudicial confession may be admitted against
him as evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if he was not assisted then by counsel
and while he was under custodial investigation.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan is constitutionally and legally correct in issuing the Order of
August 23, 1996 denying the Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence dated
August 16, 1995 filed by the accused in accordance with Sec. 15 of Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules
on Criminal Procedure in relation to Rule XXI of the Revised Rules of Sandiganbayan.
Whether or not accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which
fact was admitted by the prosecution as it even used the same as proof of the guilt of the
accused.
HELD:
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the admissions made by petitioner in
his Counter-Affidavit are not violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear from the undisputed
facts that it was not exacted by the police while he was under custody or interrogation. Hence,
the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation as embodied in Article III,
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, are not at issue in this case.
SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him. In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in
an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment of
guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged.Thus, in the case
at bar, a statement by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged against him but
denying that it was done with criminal intent is an admission, not a confession.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOSUE R. LADIANA GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and, in the absence of any modifying circumstance,
sentencing the said accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of ten (10)
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum (b) suffer all the appropriate accessory penalties consequent thereto; (c)
indemnify the heirs of the victim, Francisco San Juan, in the total amount of Fifty Six Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos P56,500.00 and pay the costs.
The petitioner appeal on Sandiganbayan and after vigorously arguing against his own Counter-
Affidavit, petitioner, in a surprising change of tenor, implores this Court to consider his voluntary
surrender to the police authorities as a mitigating circumstance.  He argues that two of the
prosecution witnesses testified that he had surrendered to the police authorities after the
shooting incident. For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements
must concur: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested, 2) the offender surrenders himself
to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent, and 3) the surrender is voluntary. To be
sufficient, the surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the
intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge their guilt
or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily be incurred in
searching for and capturing them. Because there is no showing that he was not actually
arrested and neither is there any finding that he has evinced a desire to own to any complicity
in the killing so the petition is denied and the assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed. Costs
against petitioner.1

CECILIA U. LEGRAMA, Petitioner, 
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 178626               June 13, 2012

FACTS:
On September 5, 1996, the Office of the Provincial Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA)
for the Province of Zambales issued PAO Office No. 96-09 3 directing an Audit Team composed of
State Auditor 1 Virginia D. Bulalacao, State Auditor 1 Teresita Cayabyab and Auditing Examiner II
Lourdes Castillo, to conduct an examination of the cash and account of petitioner Cecilia
Legrama, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales.
After the audit, the COA prepared a Special Cash Examination Report on the Cash and Accounts
of Ms. Cecilia U. Legrama4 dated October 1, 1996. The report contained the findings that
petitioner’s cash accountability was short of ₱289,022.75 and that there was an unaccounted
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) in the amount of ₱863,878.00, thereby showing a total
shortage in the amount of ₱1,152,900.75. Included in the shortage is the amount of
₱709,462.80, representing the total amount of various sales invoices, chits, vales, and
disbursement vouchers,5which were disallowed in the audit for lack of supporting documents.
From the total amount of the shortage, petitioner was able to restitute the initial amount of
₱60,000.00

That on or about October 1, 1996 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the
Municipality of San Antonio, Province of Zambales, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable tribunal, the above named accused ROMEO D. LONZANIDA, being then Municipal
Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, in connivance and conspiracy with co-accused CECILIA U.
LEGRAMA, being then Municipal Treasurer of San Antonio, Zambales, who, as such, is
accountable for public funds received and/or entrusted to her by reason of her office, both,
while in the performance of their respective official functions, taking advantage of their official
positions, and committing the offense in relation to their respective functions, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, take, misappropriate
and convert to their personal use and benefit, the amount of ₱1,152,900.75 from such public
funds, to the damage of the government, in the aforesaid amount.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of malversation of public funds or property
HELD:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated January 30, 2007 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25204 finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Malversation
of Public Funds, and the Resolution2dated May 30, 2007 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. The Decision dated January 30, 2007 and the Resolution dated May 30, 2007 of
the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum term, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days
of reclusion temporal, as maximum term.

71111
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
vs.
HONORABLE GREGORIO MONTEJO, Judge, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga City and Basilan
City, MAYOR LEROY S. BROWN, DETECTIVE JOAQUIN R. POLLISCO, PATROLMAN GRACIANO
LACERNA alias DODONG, PATROLMAN MOHAMAD HASBI, SPECIAL POLICEMAN DIONISIO
DINGLASA, SPECIAL POLICEMAN HADJARATIL, SPECIAL POLICEMAN ALO, and JOHN
DOES, respondents.G.R. No. L-14595             May 31, 1960

FACTS:
A sub-police station was established upon the orders of Mayor Leroy S. Brown in sitio Tipo-Tipo,
district of Lamitan, City of Basilan. Said sub-station was composed regular and special
policemen all armed with pistols and high power guns. It was alleged that criminal complaints
were entertained in the said sub-station and that defendant Joaquin R. Pollisco acted as
investigating officer and exercised authority to order the apprehension of persons and their
detention in the camp, for days or weeks, without due process of law and without bringing
them to the proper court.
On June 4, 1958, Yokan Awalin Tebag was arrested upon orders of Mayor Brown without any
warrant or complaint filed in court. Tebag was allegedly maltreated while being taken into the
sub-station and was again mauled at the sub-station, said torture resulted to Tebag’s death.
The private respondents were then charged with the crime of murder before the Court of First
Instance of the cities of Zamboanga and Basilan.
Senator Roseller Lim entered his appearance for the private respondents. The prosecution is
questioning said appearance due to the constitutional prohibition for senators and members of
the House of Representatives to appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation of his office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime charged is committed in relation to the offices of the private
respondents.

HELD:
Yes, a mere perusal of the amended information therein readily elicits an affirmative answer. It
is alleged in said amended information that "Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such,
has organized groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes consisting of regular policemen
and ... special policemen, appointed and provided by him with pistols and high power guns" and
then "established a camp at Tipo-Tipo," which is under his "command, supervision and
control," where his codefendants were stationed, entertained criminal complaints and
conducted the corresponding investigations, as well as assumed the authority to arrest and
detain persons without due process of law and without bringing them to the proper court, and
that, in line with this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon
his orders, his codefendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag, who died in consequence
thereof.

It is apparent from these allegations that, although public office is not an element of the crime
of murder in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein, according to the amended
information, the offense therein charged is intimately connected with their respective offices
and was perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their
official functions. Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not
have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent
Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of
Basilan City. To conclude in answer to the argument made by appellant, we can say that sections
1578 and 1579 of the Administrative Code establish an adequate remedy at law and that we are
not convinced that the enforcement of the tax will produce irreparable injury, and, in answer to
the argument of appellee, that sections 1578 and 1579 of the Administrative Code of 1917 are
valid. The result is, thus, to affirm the final order appealed from. Costs shall be taxed against the
appellant. So ordered.

EOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO\

GR No. 181902, Aug 31, 2011

FATCS:
the Court found accused, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of ROBBERY WITH RAPE charged under the information and sentenced to suffer
the maximum penalty of DEATH, and pay actual damages.
On August 28, 2007, appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), appealed the
decision of the CA to this Court. Appellant had assigned the following error in his appeal initially
passed upon by the CA, to wit:The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime,committed by a band,dwelling and unlawful entry in the imposition
of the penalty against the accused –appellant.
In his Brief, appellant denied having committed the crime charged and interposed alibi as a
defense. He claims that at the time of the incident on October 3, 2001, at about 6:30 in the
evening, he was sleeping in his house at Diit, Tacloban City, together with his mother and
sisters. On the other hand, the appellant was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses
as one of the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with rape. Both the trial court and the CA
found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. The Court gives great weight to
the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness because it had the opportunity to
observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying, thus
making it in a better position to determine whether a witness is lying or telling the truth.
ISSUE:
Whether or not considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry.

Held:
the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00109
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Joseph Evangelio is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua, without eligibility of parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. He is ordered to return
the pieces of jewelry and valuables taken from the spouses BBB and CCC as enumerated in the
Information dated December 3, 2001. Should restitution be no longer possible, appellant shall
pay the spouses BBB and CCC the value of the stolen pieces of jewelry and valuables in the
amount of PhP336,000.00. He is further directed to pay AAA the amounts of PhP75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, PhP75,000.00 as moral damages and PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded in this
case from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DE LOS REYES, ET. AL.

G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634, October 16, 2012

FACTS:
Go was convicted of two counts of rape. It was stated that Imelda the complainant upon
request of her sister Carla went to the house of Go to bring some pictures. Upon arrival Imelda
saw Go at the road outside his house talking to another man, introduced later to her as Val De
Los Reyes. It rained and so suddenly, the 3 of them took shelter inside Go’s house. Imelda was
forced to drink 2 bottles of beers causing her to feel dizzy, until Val succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her against her will, thereafter Go took his turn, aided by al by covering the
mouth of Imelda and holding her hands. Imelda then filed two separate informations. The
RTC convicted the appellants of two counts of rape. Through counsel, Val appealed and the
court en banc rendered a decision vacating the conviction of Val, upon finding that RTC violated
sec. 1, 2, Rule 132 and Sec.1 Rule 133 of then Revised Rules of Court requiring that the
testimonies of the witnesses be given orally.law library

ISSUE:

Whether there is a necessity of transferring these cases to the CA for immediate review.

HELD:
No. Since the records reveal that the appellant jumped bail during the proceedings before the
RTC and was in fact tried and convicted in absencia. There is already dearth of evidence showing
that he has since surrendered to the court’s jurisdiction. Thus he has no right to pray
for affirmative relief before the courts. Once an accused escapes from prison/ confinement,
jumps bail as in appellants case or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and
unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived
any right to seek relief there from. Thus even if the court were to remand these cases to CA for
immediate review the CA would only be constrained to dismiss appellants appeal as he is
considered a fugitive from justice. Sec 8 Rule 124 of the Rules of Court is relevant which
provides for Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or Failure to Prosecute.

Abuse of Confidence: Aggravating Circumstances

Title: The People of the Philippine Islands vs Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. L-37271, July 1, 1933
Facts: Magdalena Caliso is accused of the crime of murder of a 9-month-old boy, in La Carlota,
Negros Occidental, on February 8 of this year, 1932. The complaint alleges that the accused,
being a servant of the Mr. and Mrs. Esmeralda, voluntarily, illegally and criminally and with the
purpose of satisfying a vengeance, administer a certain amount of concentrated acetic acid,
which is a poisonous substance, to Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., a 9-month-old boy, causing him burns
in the mouth, throat, intestines and other vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily
caused the death of the victim, who succumbed a few hours later; that in the commission of
this crime, the aggravating circumstances of alevosia have concurred.
Days before this event, at the kitchen, Mrs. Esmeralda began to insult the accused from head to
toe, recriminating her for her immoral act in allowing her lover to hide at the master’s bedroom.
But the scolding did not stop there, after finding something dirty in the pillow covers, Mrs.
Esmeralda returned to the kitchen to reprimand her again. These events triggered the accused
into committing the crime as a revenge for the insults received.
The Court was therefore not convinced by the accused’s theory that the child had an indigestion
for having ingested orange juice after drinking milk, and that the smell of acetic acid could be
derived from the vomiting of the kid by mixing it with orange juice and milk.
The appellant, Magdalena Caliso, is found guilty of the crime of murder, and considered the
crime under aggravating circumstance of alevosia, because the child was a defenseless being,
and the circumstance of having performed the act in the own residence of the victim's parents,
having acted on the basis of impulses of a feeling that has caused her outburst and obsession,
condemns her to the penalty of life imprisonment , to compensate the parents of the deceased
in the sum of P1,000, with the accessory of the law, and to pay the costs of the trial. 
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence.

Held: The Court agreed to the conclusions of fact reached by the trial court. The aggravating
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic
servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child's amah. 

The circumstance of the crime having been committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
considered by the lower court as another aggravating circumstance, should be disregarded as
both the victim and the appellant were living in the same house. Likewise, threachery cannot be
considered to aggravate the penalty as it is inherent in the offense of murder by means of
poisoning.

The finding of the trial court that the appellant acted under an impulse so powerful as naturally
to have produced passion and obfuscation should be discarded because the accused, in
poisoning the child, was actuated more by a spirit of lawlessness and revenge than by any
sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury and because such sudden burst of passion
was not provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the victim or of his parents, since Flora
Gonzalez had the perfect right to reprimand the defendant for indecently converting the
family's bedroom into a rendezvous of herself and her lover.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence being offset by the extenuating
circumstance of defendant's lack of instruction considered by the lower court, the medium
degree of the prescribed penalty should, therefore, be imposed, which, in this case,
is perpetual reclusion.

Title: People of the Philippines vs Belinda Lora y Vequizo, G. R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982

Facts: On May 26, 1975, accused Belinda Lora, using the name "Lorena Sumilew", applied as a
housemaid in the household of the spouses Ricardo Yap and Myrna Yap at 373 Ramon
Magsaysay Avenue, Davao City. The spouses had a store on the ground floor; a mezzanine floor
was used as their residence; while the third floor was used as a bodega for their stocks. They
had two children, Emily and Oliver Yap. Oliver was 3 years and five months old.

Belinda Lora was accepted as a housemaid in the residence of the Yaps and reported for work
the following day, May 27, 1975. Her duties were to wash clothes and to look after Oliver Yap.

On May 28, 1975, Mrs. Myrna Yap returned home from the market to find her mother-in-law
and her husband panicky because their son, Oliver, and the maid, accused Belinda Lora, were
missing. The mother-in-law had found a ransom note at the stairway to the mezzanine floor.
The note said that Oliver was to be sold to a couple and that the writer (defendant herein)
needed money for her mother's hospitalization.

The incident was reported immediately to the police. In the evening of May 28, 1975, the Yaps
received two telephone calls at their residence. The first call was received by Mrs. Yaps'
mother-in-law while the second call was received by Ricardo Yap. Lorena Sumilew (defendant),
the caller, instructed Ricardo Yap to bring the amount of P3,000.00 to the island in front of the
(Davao) Regional Hospital and to go there alone without any policeman or companion, after
which his son (Oliver) would be left to the security guard of the hospital at the emergency exit.
Upon instructions of the NBI, the money was marked with Mrs. Yap's initials "MY".

Ricardo Yap wrapped the P3,000.00 in a piece of paper and went to the Regional Hospital at
9:30 in the evening of May 28, 1975. He placed the money near the Imelda Playground.
However, the security guard said nobody left a boy with him. After ten minutes, he went back
to where he had placed the money but the money was not there anymore.

The following morning, May 29, 1975, Mrs. Yap received a phone call from the accused
informing her that her son was at the Minrapco Terminal and that she was asking for another
P3,000.00. When Myrna Yap arrived at the place, she saw the accused board a Minica bus. She
followed and grabbed the accused. The accused told Mrs. Yap that her son was in the custody
of a woman, and that such woman would return her son at 6:00 pm that day. After the accused
boarded a bus for Surigao, Mrs. Yap reported to Lt. Mesias of the Davao City Police Force and
was able to stop the bus and placed the accused under arrest.

The following morning, May 30, 1975, upon waking up at around 6 o'clock in his house, Ricardo
Yap noticed that blood was dripping from the ceiling. He went upstairs, which was being utilized
as a bodega, to verify, and found his son placed inside the carton of Marlboro cigarettes. The
head of the child was inside the carton while his feet protruded outside. His mouth was tied
with stockings. The child was already dead. He had died of "asphyxhia due to suffocation."
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder with the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of confidence.

Held: The accused was charged for the crime of serious illegal detention with murder for
illegally detaining a 3-year old child, and attacking the same, which resulted to the child's death.
There are three aggravating circumstances in this case, namely: (1) lack of respect due to the
tender age of the victim;(2) cruelty, for gagging the victim's mouth with stockings thereby
causing slow suffocation; and (3) abuse of confidence, since the main duty of the accused in the
household was to take care of the minor child. The Court finds the defendant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified with treachery and appreciating the
aggravating circumstances.

Night Time: Treachery and Aggravating Circumstances

Title: People of the Philippines vs Mario Marcelo y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140385, April 14, 2004

Facts: At about 6:00 p.m. on June 11, 1998, Christopher Sunga and his friends Rodel Bautista,
Rodelio Manalang, Arsenio Madrigo, and Ednor Cabrera were in the house of Dominador
Sunga, Christopher’s father, located at Barrio Sua, Masantol, Pampanga. They were having a
drinking spree in celebration of Christopher’s birthday. At about 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., Dominador
arrived with the appellant. After sometime, a commotion ensued when the appellant created
trouble and challenged Ednor Cabrera to a duel. When Christopher’s mother failed to calm the
situation, Dominador intervened and succeeded in bringing the appellant home.

At about 11:00 p.m., upon calling it a night, Christopher told his parents that he, along with
Madrigo and Bautista would accompany Manalang to their house. As they were passing by the
house of the appellant, the latter sneaked from behind Manalang and stabbed him at the back.
Bautista tried to restrain the appellant, but the latter stabbed him on the right arm. Afraid for
his life, Bautista ran to their house and passed out. When he regained consciousness, Bautista
was already at the Jose B. Lingad Hospital in San Fernando, Pampanga, being treated for his
wounds.
Meanwhile, the appellant continued stabbing Manalang. Christopher and Madrigo ran to the
Bantay Bayan Office for help. When they met Dominador on the way, they informed him of the
stabbing incident. Dominador, together with some barangay tanods, proceeded to the place of
the incident to conduct an investigation. On their way, Dominador saw Bautista who was then
fleeing to their house and noticed the wound on the latter’s right arm. Bautista told Dominador
that he and Manalang were stabbed by the appellant. Dominador then rushed to the house of
the appellant, and saw the bloodied body of Manalang lying by the roadside.

The appellant was nearby, armed with a .22 air rifle. Dominador ordered the barangay tanods
to bring Manalang to the hospital. He then talked to the appellant, but the latter threatened to
shoot him if he came closer. Dominador managed to calm the appellant and bring him to his
house.

While he was on his way home, Dominador saw SPO2 Nicolas Yabut and SPO3 Francisco V.
Cortez, police officers of Masantol, Pampanga, who were on their way to arrest the appellant.
Dominador accompanied them to the appellant’s house. SPO1 Renato Layug and SPO2 Nicolas
Yabut brought the appellant to the police station.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the court a-quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-
appellant for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) Whether the court a-quo gravely erred in not giving weight and credence to accused-
appellant’s plea of self-defense.
(3) Whether or not the court a-quo gravely erred in finding that treachery and evident
premeditation attended the commission of the crime charged.

Held: (1) The Decision of the Regional Trial Court in finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Considering that the prosecution was able to prove actual
damages only in the amount of P18,500, the heirs are awarded P25,000 as temperate damages
in lieu of actual damages conformably to current jurisprudence. In addition, the said appellant
is ORDERED to pay to said heirs P25,000 as exemplary damages.

(2) The appellant’s plea of self-defense is without merit. There can be no self-defense, complete
or incomplete, unless the accused proves (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b)
means employed were reasonable, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. The
appellant failed to discharge his burden.

(3) The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder, qualified by treachery under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There is treachery in the commission of the crime when
(a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; (b) the offender
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method and form of attack
employed by him. Without any warning, the appellant stabbed the victim on the vital parts of
his body, ensuring the latter’s immediate death. Thus, the appellant killed the victim in a
treacherous manner. In order for the aggravating circumstance of night time to be appreciated,
it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or
taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity, however, it was not shown in
this case.

Recidivism

People of the Philippines vs Francisco Dacillo, G.R. No. 149368, April 14, 2004

Facts: The victim, seventeen-year-old Rosemarie B. Tallada, was last seen alive at dusk on
February 6, 2000, on the bridge near appellants house at Purok No. 3, New Society Village,
Ilang, Davao City by the witness Jovelyn Dagmil, the victim’s cousin who testified that she saw
the victim Rosemarie on the bridge waiting for someone; and then later on saw her entered the
appellant’s house.

Not long after Rosemarie went inside the house, a struggle was heard by the witnesses Roche
and Resna Abregon, who were in the adjacent house and suddenly felt the floor shaking as if a
scuffle was going on at the other side of the wall. Roche Abregon peeped through a hole on the
wall and saw appellant and another man grappling with a woman who was gagged with a
handkerchief. When Roche saw appellant choking the woman, she informed her aunt about the
commotion in appellants house but the aunt brushed it aside as a simple family quarrel. For a
while they heard the sound of a woman being beaten up. Then everything became quiet. Later
that evening, they saw appellant leaving his house.

The following day, February 7, 2000, at around 8:00 a. m., appellant was seen entering his
house carrying lumber and screen and at around 9:00 a. m., appellant was seen with ready-
mixed cement in a plastic pail and, when asked what he was going to do with the cement,
replied that it was for the sink he was constructing.

By February 11, 2000, neighbors started smelling the rotten odor of Rosemarie’s already
decomposing body. At 5:00 p. m. the same day, witnesses Roche, Resna, and Rachel were
gathering seashells under appellants house when they saw droplets of blood and pus dripping
from appellants comfort room. They, together with their aunt and her husband, immediately
reported the matter to barangay officials who called the police who then cracked open the
tomb and revealed the decomposing body of a woman later on identified by the victim’s
mother and aunt as Rosemarie.
Dr. Danilo Ledesma conducted an autopsy on Rosemarie’s remains which revealed that
Rosemarie died from a stab wound in the abdomen and further disclosed that she suffered
contusions in the anterior chest wall and her right hand; an incised wound on her left middle
finger; a stab wound on the left side of the face and fractures on her rib side. Moreover, the
wounds suffered by Rosemarie indicated that she put up a struggle and the wounds were
inflicted before her death.

In the appellant’s defense, he admitted complicity in the crime but minimized his participation.
Appellant alleged that he only held down Rosemaries legs to prevent her from struggling and,
after the latter was killed by another man he identified as Joselito Pacot, he encased the corpse
in cement.

He claimed that Pacot, a co-worker, was looking for a house where he and his girlfriend
Rosemarie could spend the night. He offered his brother’s house which was under his care. In
the evening of February 6, 2000, he and Joselito Pacot brought Rosemarie to the house at
Purok No. 3, New Society Village, Ilang, Davao City.

After accompanying the couple there, he went home to take supper. Later that evening, when
he arrived, Pacot and Rosemarie were already grappling with each other and Pacot was
strangling the girl. He told Pacot to stop but instead of heeding him, the latter ordered him to
close the door. Pacot told appellant that he was going to be implicated just the same so he
closed the door as ordered and helped Pacot (hold) the feet of the woman as her feet kept
hitting the walls.

The two men stopped only when Rosemarie was already motionless. Pacot wanted to dump the
body into the sea but appellant told him it was low tide. Appellant then suggested that they
entomb the body in cement for which Pacot gave appellant P500.

Pacot left the house at dawn the following day, February 7, 2000. At past 10:00 a. m., appellant
brought the concrete mixture and cast the dead body in cement. After finishing the job in the
afternoon of that day, appellant reported for work at DUCC.

When the body was discovered in the evening of February 11, 2000, appellant immediately left
for Cebu City, arriving there the next day, February 12, 2000. He stayed in Cebu City until his
arrest the following year.

Issues: (1) Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

(2) Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in awarding the heirs of the offended party
the amount of php50,000. 00, which appears as payment for actual damages.
Held: (1) The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing of Rosemarie was committed with
abuse of superior strength. As found by the court a quo, two grown-up men against a young
fragile woman whose ability to defend herself had been effectively restrained revealed a
shocking inequality of physical strength. The victim was much weaker in constitution and could
not have possibly defended herself from her stronger assailants; the killing of Rosemarie was
thus correctly qualified to murder by the abuse of superior strength, a circumstance specifically
pleaded in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court found that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the
ground that appellant admitted during re-cross examination that he had a prior conviction for
the death of his former live-in partner. The fact that appellant was a recidivist was appreciated
by the trial court as a generic aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable penalty
from reclusion perpetua to death. However, in order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the information and to attach certified true copies of
the sentences previously meted out to the accused.

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information and therefore
cannot be appreciated against appellant. Hence the imposable penalty should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.

(2) The award of P50,000 as moral damages is proper, supported as it was by the testimony of
Charlita Tallada, the victim’s mother, that Rosemarie’s death caused her immeasurable pain. In
addition, the Court awards P25,000 in temperate damages, said amount being awarded in
homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the
trial court. And with regard to the award of exemplary damages, in the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the amount of P25,000 may be
appropriately awarded.

The Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC and declared the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. Being neither aggravating not mitigating
circumstances, the appellant is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is ordered to
indemnify the heirs of Rosemarie the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral
damages, P25,000 as temperate damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.

Evident Premeditation

People of the Philippines vs Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, March 27, 2008

Facts: On or about the 28th day of October 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused,
Angelo and his wife conspire together, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with evident premeditation, treachery, assault, attack and employ personal
violence Ramon Garcia y Lopez.
At about 2:15 in the morning of the same date, the car boarded by Angelo and Petronilla
stopped in front of Ramon’s house at No. 25-C General Tinio Street, La Loma, Quezon City. After
parking nearby, they proceeded to Ramon’s house and repeatedly called for Ramon. Aleine
(niece of Cristina Mercado, Ramon’s common-law wife) was awakened by the repeated calls and
opened the door. Petronilla requested Aleine to call Ramon. Then, Aleine invited Angelo and
Petronilla inside the house but the two replied that they would just wait for Ramon outside.
Aleine proceeded to the second floor of the house and knocked at the door of Ramon’s room.
Ramon woke up. Subsequently, Aleine went downstairs and proceeded to the dining table.
While Ramon was walking down the stairs, Angelo suddenly entered the house and shot Ramon
several times on different parts of the body with a caliber .45 Llama pistol. Upon seeing the
shooting, Aleine hid inside the restroom. And when the gunshots ceased, Aleine went out of the
restroom and saw Ramon sprawled and bloodied on the ground floor.
Subsequently, Aleine went out of the house and called for help. Edwin, Rey and Melvin, who
were drinking outside, approached her. They carried Ramon and placed him inside a vehicle
owned by a neighbor. While they were on their way to the Chinese General Hospital, Ramon
told Aleine that the one who shot him was "asawa ni Nellie na kapitbahay namin sa Las
Piñas." Ramon died due to gunshot wounds while being operated on at the Chinese General
Hospital. Thereafter, the police arrived at the crime scene and recovered several empty bullet
shells and slugs.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Ramon’s killing was attended by the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and nocturnity.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation in the

commission of the crime.

HELD: The court held that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated. Evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the following
evidence are present: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b)an
act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to his resolve; and (c) a sufficient interval of the
time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning.

However, in this case, the third element of premeditation is lacking. The span of 30 minutes or
half an hour from the time appellant shot Ramon could not have afforded them full opportunity
for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed. The court held
that the lapse of 30 minutes between the determination to commit a crime and the execution is
insufficient for a full meditation on the consequences of the act.

The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 June 2006 is hereby affirmed with the following
modifications: (1) the penalty of death imposed on appellant is lowered to reclusion perpetua;
(2) appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Ramon Garcia the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages; (3) the award of actual damages is reduced to
₱115,473.00; and (4) the indemnity for Ramon’s loss of earning capacity is increased to
₱2,354,163.99. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of ₱50,000.00 is maintained.

Title: People of the Philippines vs SPO1 Alfredo Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, September 18, 2013

Facts: In the early morning of November 30, 1996, the victim and Reyes went to a nearby
market. Upon their return, Reyes left the victim at the latter’s residence and came back at
noon. He did not immediately enter the house as he noticed several policemen strategically
positioned on the premises. He saw appellant and PO3 Ventinilla standing by the door shortly
before entering the victim’s house. He also saw SPO2 Dabu standing at the front gate while PO2
De Vera was on top of the septic tank. Standing at the main door was PO2 Corpuz. To avoid
being noticed, Reyes used the alternative road and went inside the house through the back
gate. From his position, he could hear the conversation among appellant, PO3 Ventinilla and
the victim. The latter who just woke up was told to dress up and bring his firearm as he was
summoned by SPO4 Miraples to join a police team in an operation regarding illegal drugs. After
the group left the victim’s residence, Reyes entered the house. While inside, he received a
telephone call from the victim telling him, "Pare wala pala kaming tatrabahuhin, ako pala
angtatrabahuhin, tulungan mo ako, sumundo ka ng tao na tutulong sa akin." But before Reyes
could say anything, the telephone conversation was cut. Not longafter, Reyes learned that the
victim died from gunshot wounds in different parts of his body while inside the premises of
Police Kababayan Center I in Doña Ata Subdivision, Marulas, Valenzuela City.

Issues: (1) Whether or not the CA erred in its factual finding that [appellant]claimed self-
defense despite evidence showing that his defense was total denial.
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
(3) Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.

Held: (1) The CA committed no error in imposing upon him the burden of proving the elements
of self-defense and Court then, render that the appellant’s claim of self-defense deserves no
credence at all. This was belied by appellant’s assertion that he was outside the police station
premises when the victim was killed. The physical evidence presented by the prosecution put
appellant in the crime scene. He tested positive for gunpowder nitrates which proved that he
fired his firearm. Dr. Bernales also testified that the victim was killed by more than one
assailant. Clearly, appellant was with PO3 Ventinilla when the victim was killed.

(2) The Court agreed with the RTC finding as affirmed by the CA that treachery attended the
killing. The Medico-Legal Record showed that the victim sustained two puncture wounds at his
lower neck and three gunshot wounds. The Autopsy Report also showed that the victim had
contusion on his chest, upper quadrant and contused-abrasion on his left forearm. As regards
the gunshot wounds, the prosecution was able to establish that the same were inflicted by
more than one assailant using three different firearms in view of their size and location.

(3) In order "for evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the time when accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating
that he has clung to his determination; and, (3) sufficient lapse of time between [such a
determination and the actual execution to allow the accused time to reflect upon the
consequences of his act."

In this case, the courts below based their finding of evident premeditation on the entries in the
Dispatch Logbook, the alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were
going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs, as well as the telephone call made
by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident

"It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of
its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or
persistent attempt." Notably, even the OSG admitted that the lapse of time from the moment
the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.

The Court then held that Appellant SPO1 Alfredo Alawig is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole; to pay the heirs of the victim PO3 Miel de Ocampo Cafe the
amount of ₱103,472.00 as actual damages; ₱1,445,990.00 as indemnity for the victim’s loss of
earning capacity and to pay the costs of suit. The award of exemplary damages is increased to
₱30,000.00 while the awards of ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages
stand.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. TORRES

G.R. No. 189850               September 22, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:

This is an appeal from the July 23, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified
the December 5, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 27. The RTC
found appellant Bobby Torres @Roberto Torres y Nava (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder after it found the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength but on appeal, the CA found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.

On or about September 21, 2001, the accused, Bobby Torres @Roberto Torres y Nava and his
siblings Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo), Jay Torres (Jay), Ronnie Torres (Ronnie), armed with bladed
weapons, conspiring and confederating together while JAIME M. ESPINO was on board his car
and travelling along C.M. Recto Avenue, Tondo ,Manila, blocked his path and forcibly grabbed
from the latter his belt-bag and when the latter resisted, stabbed the latter with bladed
weapons on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, and took his belt-bag,
wallet, necklace, watch and ring of undetermined amount.

Espino was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. In his Medico-Legal
Report, the doctor concluded that Espino died of multiple stab wounds caused by sharp bladed
instruments. The back portion of his head bore two stab wounds while his body suffered four
stab wounds which proved fatal. Considering the number and varying measurements of the
wounds, it is concluded that there were more than one assailant.

To prove the civil aspect of the case, Espino’s daughter, testified that the pieces of jewelry stolen
from her father consisted of a necklace worth ₱35,000.00, bracelet worth ₱15,000.00,
wristwatch worth ₱10,000.00 and two rings worth ₱10,000.00 each. As for their expenses,
Winnie said that ₱25,000.00 was spent for the burial lot and ₱37,000.00 for the funeral
services. She stated further that Espino was 51 years old at the time of his death and was
earning ₱3,000.00 a day as a meat vendor.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the RTC erred on its decision when the CA found appellant guilty of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide in place of a previous punishment of murder

2. Whether or not the RTC erred in refusing to award indemnity for loss of earning capacity of
Espino

HELD:

1. In modifying the ruling of the RTC, i.e., finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide
instead of murder, 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. The blocking of Espino’s car and
the struggle for possession of his belt-bag after he alighted are clear manifestations of the intent
to commit robbery. The presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in qualifying
the offense to murder.1âwphi1When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with
homicide being a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised
Penal Code.

2. The RTC did not err in refusing to award indemnity for loss of earning capacity of Espino
despite the testimony of his daughter that he earned ₱3,000.00 a day as a meat dealer. "Such
indemnity is not awarded in the absence of documentary evidence except where the victim was
either self-employed or was a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws. Since it was neither alleged nor proved that the victim was either self-
employed or was a daily wage earner, indemnity for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded
to the heirs of the victim."

RIVERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 166326             January 25, 2006

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming, with
modification, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite, Branch 90, in Criminal
Case No. 6962-99, entitled People of the Philippines. v. Esmeraldo Rivera, et al. charging
Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo, all surnamed Rivera, of attempted murder.

The accused, now petitioners, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that the
CA erred in affirming the RTC decision. They insist that the prosecution failed to prove that they
had the intention to kill Ruben when they mauled and hit him with a hollow block.

Ruben Rodil testified that he used to work as a taxi driver. He stopped driving in April 1998 after
a would-be rapist threatened his life. He was even given a citation as a Bayaning Pilipino by the
television network ABS-CBN for saving the would-be victim. His wife eked out a living as a
manicurist. They and their three children resided in Barangay San Isidro Labrador II, Dasmariñas,
Cavite, near the house of Esmeraldo Rivera and his brothers Ismael and Edgardo.

At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food. Edgardo mocked him for
being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and hurled
invectives at Edgardo. A heated exchange of words ensued.
At about 7:30 p.m. the next day, Ruben went to the store to buy food and to look for his wife.
His three-year-old daughter was with him. Momentarily, Esmeraldo and his two brothers, Ismael
and Edgardo, emerged from their house and ganged up on Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael
mauled Ruben with fist blows and he fell to the ground. In that helpless position, Edgardo hit
Ruben three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo and Ismael continued
mauling Ruben. People who saw the incident shouted: "Awatin sila! Awatin sila!" Ruben felt
dizzy but managed to stand up. Ismael threw a stone at him, hitting him at the back. When
policemen on board a mobile car arrived, Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house.

Ruben was brought to the hospital. His attending physician, Dr. Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., signed a
medical certificate in which he declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds on the parietal
area, cerebral concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper buttocks, multiple
abrasions on the left shoulder and hematoma periorbital left. The doctor declared that the
lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight and superficial and would heal from one to
seven days. The doctor prescribed medicine for Ruben’s back pain, which he had to take for one
month.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision of ATTEMPTED MURDER.
2. Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the commission of the felony.
HELD:
1. The CA held that the prosecution was able to prove petitioners’ intent to kill Ruben. On the
first assigned error, intent to kill may be deduced from the nature of the wound inflicted and the
kind of weapon used. As earlier stated by Dr. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the victim
had the hollow block directly hit his head, and had the police not promptly intervened so that
the brothers scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill
is evident, the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the (3) brothers
helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even after he had already fallen to the
ground; that one of them even picked up a cement hollow block and proceeded to hit the victim
on the head with it three times; and that it was only the arrival of the policemen that made the
appellants desist from their concerted act of trying to kill Ruben Rodil. That the head wounds
sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death does not
negate petitioners’ criminal liability for attempted murder. Even if Edgardo did not hit the victim
squarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder so the appeal is
DENIED.

2. The CA REJECTED the petitioners’ contention that the prosecution failed to prove treachery in
the commission of the felony. Petitioners attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected
manner as Ruben was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent
peril to his life. He had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the
synchronized assault of the three siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on the victim. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected,
giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery.
Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the altercation between him and
petitioner Edgardo Rivera a day before. There being conspiracy by and among petitioners,
treachery is considered against all of them.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MONGADO 

G.R. No. L-24877             June 30, 1969

FACTS:

On March 17, 1965, in the municipality of Mainit, province of Surigao del Norte,
Philippines, the accused, Gaudencio Mongado, Jilly Segador, Belesande Salar, Anastacio
Cadenas and Andres Cagadas with evident premeditation, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping one another, and armed with an unlicensed .22 cal.
revolver, a small sharp-pointed bolo, a toy revolver marked `Kit gun' and a wooden club,
with intent to gain, after having gained entrance to the residence of Silvino Lincuna and
Emilia Dalit, husband and wife respectively, by abusing the goodwill of the said spouses,
the latter being the uncle and aunt respectively of the accused Gaudencio Mongado, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force upon things thru
violence.

On the same occasion, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and assault in a treacherous manner the said spouses,
Silvino Lincuna and Emilia Dalit; that is, the accused Belesande Salar clubbing Silvino
Lincuna on the head; Gaudencio Mongado tying him helplessly to a chair with the use of
radio antennae and stuffing his mouth with rolls of gauze, and Jilly Segador attacking him
with fatal thrusts by means of a sharp-pointed bolo, and finally with Belesande Salar,
also with the use of the same sharp-pointed bolo, stabbing Emilia Dalit with several fatal
thrusts.

On the occasion of the said Robbery, with Double Homicide, the accused Belesande
Salar after having fatally assaulted the wife, Emilia Dalit, and while she was alive and
helpless, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
with the said Emilia Dalit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Treachery (Alevosia) may be considered as aggravating circumstance in this

case.

2. Whether or not the rape committed added ignominy to the crime

HELD:

1. The general rule is that treachery should normally attend the inception of the attack.  But "if a
person is first seized and bound, with a view to rendering him incapable of defense, and he is
then slain either by the person who reduced him to his helpless state or by another," Alevosia is
present. Reason for this is that "In a case of that kind it is obvious that the binding of the victim
of the aggression introduces a material change in the conditions of the homicide; and in slaying
a person so circumstance, the author of the crime obviously avails himself of a form or means
directly tending to insure the execution of the deed without risk to himself from any defense on
the part of the person slain." In this case, the second amended information specifically charged
that defendants killed Silvino Lincuna "in a treacherous manner ... that is, the accused
Belesande Salar clubbing Silvino Lincuna on the head, Gaudencio Mongado tying him helplessly
to a chair with the use of radio antennae and stuffing his mouth with rolls of gauze, and Jilly
Segador attacking him with fatal thrusts by means of a sharp-pointed bolo." No doubt, the
principles heretofore stated fit into the foregoing facts. Treachery has been properly
appreciated. We do not thus find it necessary to pass upon the lower court's pronouncement
that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of confidence also
attended the commission of the crime. The result is the same. The penalty is death.1awphil.nêt

2. It is the uniform jurisprudence of the Court that where the crime charged is robbery with
homicide and rape, the legal definition of the crime is robbery with homicide punishable under
paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Penal Code; and the rape committed on the occasion of that
crime is considered an aggravating circumstance. Instead of ignominy, therefore, it is the rape
itself that aggravates.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTICAMARA

G.R. No. 178771               June 8, 2011
PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the trial court's
judgment finding appellants Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (Lando) and Alberto Cabillo
Anticamara (Al) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder and
Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention.
On or about the 7th day of May 2002, more or less 3:00 o'clock in the early morning, at the
Estrella Compound, Brgy. Carmen East, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are private
persons, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with firearms, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Sulpacio Abad and AAA, both
employees of the Estrellas, thereby depriving them of their liberty, all against their will for a
period of twenty-seven (27) days. In the course of the kidnapping, Sulpacio Abad was killed and
buried in Brgy. Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan and AAA was raped for several times by her
abductors.
On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and Bert Tañedo would kill her.
Lando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling AAA that he would leave her there as soon
as Fred and Bert Tañedo leave the place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando
Calaguas sexually molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening her
that he would turn her over to Fred and Bert Tañedo.
AAA was brought to the residence of Fred's niece, a certain Minda, where Fred kept AAA as his
wife. At nighttime, Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her
back to appellant Lando Calaguas who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. She was afraid Lando
might also kill her.
On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Kananga, Leyte, together with his wife Marsha and their
children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's brother Sito, where she was made as a house
helper.
On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to Isabel, Leyte and
sought the help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing AAA's plight, Susana called AAA's
brother in Cebu, who later fetched AAA in Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When
they arrived in Mandaue City, they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in imposing the accused-appellant the supreme penalty
of Death for the crime of Murder and Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention aggravated by Rape.
2. Whether or not the RTC erred in holding that Conspiracy existed between and among the
alleged perpetrators of the crime.
3. Whether or not the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the
commission of the crime.

HELD:
1. DENIED. Although no one directly saw the actual killing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was able
to paint a clear picture that the appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the Estrellas,
tied and blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was repeatedly shot and
buried. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with rape is death. In view of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole. Accordingly, the imposable penalty for appellant Lando
is reclusion perpetua.
2. Prior to the commission of the crime, the group met at the landing field in Carmen,
Pangasinan and discussed their plan to rob the house of the Estrellas with the agreement that
whoever comes their way will be eliminated. 15 Appellant Al served as a lookout by posting
himself across the house of the Estrellas with the task of reporting any movements outside.
Fred then climbed the old unserviceable gate of the Estrella compound and then opened the
small door and the rest of the group entered the house of the Estrellas through that
opening.16 After almost an hour inside the house, they left on board a vehicle with AAA and
Sulpacio. AAA and Sulpacio were brought to Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales,
Pangasinan. In that place, Sulpacio was killed and AAA was brought to another place and
deprived of her liberty. These circumstances establish a community of criminal design between
the malefactors in committing the crime. Clearly, the group conspired to rob the house of the
Estrellas and kill any person who comes their way. The killing of Sulpacio was part of their
conspiracy.

3. It was proven that when AAA boarded the vehicle, she saw Sulpacio tied and blindfolded.
Later, when they reached the fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led out of the
vehicle by the group. When the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter found by the authorities, the
autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and
tied at the back of the skull and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the victim.
There is no question therefore, that the victim's body, when found, still had his hands tied and
blindfolded. This situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was
present in the commission of the crime.
The aggravating circumstance of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated because it
is absorbed by treachery.
The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape
is death. In view of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion
perpetua,58 without eligibility for parole.59 Accordingly, the imposable penalty for appellant
Lando is reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LIKIRAN

G.R. No. 201858               June 4, 2014

REYES, J.:

FACTS:

The incident that led to the death of Rolando Sareno Jr. happened on the wee hour of March
19, 2000 in BarangayBugca-on, Lantapon, Bukidnon. It was the eve of the town fiesta and a
dance was being held at the basketball court. Prosecution witnesses Celso Dagangon, Prescado
Mercado and Constancio Goloceno testified that on said night, they were at the dance together
with Sareno at around 8:00 p.m. After a few hours, while Mercado and Goloceno were inside
the dance area, Jerome Likiran3 (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 Jenny left, but Sareno was already dead at that point. Sareno suffered
multiple gunshot wounds and a stab wound at the left scapular area.4

Jenny Likiran alias “Loloy” (accused-appellant’), however, denied any involvement in the crime.
While he admitted that he was at the dance, he did not go outside when the commotion
happened. He and Jerome stayed within the area where the sound machine was located and
they only heard the gunshots outside. Other witnesses testified in the accused-appellant’s
defense, with Edgar Indanon testifying that he saw the stabbing incident and that it was some
other unknown person, and not the accused-appellant, who was the culprit; and Eleuterio
Quiñopa stating that he was with the accused-appellant and Jerome inside the dance hall at the
time the commotion occurred.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the RTC erred in its conclusion that the killing of Sareno was attended by
treachery, qualifying the crime to murder.

2. Whether or not there was a conspiracy between the brothers on the killing of Sareno

HELD:

1. The Court cannot agree with the RTC and CA’s conclusion that the killing of Sareno was
attended by treachery, qualifying the crime to murder. Treachery is not present when the killing
is not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted,
but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a
provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. Treachery is
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance when the following elements are shown: a) the
malefactor employed means, method, or manner of execution affording the person attacked no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and b) the means, method, or manner of execution
was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. 

2. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses all point to the fact that the shooting and
stabbing of Sareno was actually a spur of the moment incident, a result of the brawl that
happened during the barrio dance. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant
and his brother Jerome deliberately planned the means by which they would harm Sareno. In
fact, what was revealed by the prosecution evidence was that Sareno was an innocent
bystander who unfortunately became a target of the accused-appellant and Jerome’s rampage.
Consequently, the accused-appellant should be liable only for the lesser crime of Homicide.

G.R. No. 186227               July 20, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.
ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS: Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a
report that Mantalaba who was 17 years old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust operation, two
informations was filed against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. Mantalaba pleaded
not guilty.

RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua
to death and fine of P500, 000 for illegally possessing and selling of shabu, Mantalaba was
penalized, for 6 years and 1 day as minimum and 8 years as maximum of prision mayor and fine
of 300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.

The accused states that the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was no
evidence of actual sale between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He
also claims that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not established.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of drug trafficking and possession.
RULING: The petition is without merit.

The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefore. From the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well
established that the elements have been satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer
were properly identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as the marked money used, were
also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also clear as to the manner in which the buy-
bust operation was conducted.

The accused was minor during the buy-bust operation but was of legal age during the
promulgation of the decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the promulgation
of the RTC's decision against him. The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with PD
603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law that were
applicable at the time of the promulgation of the judgment.

But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating
circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty
should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty
next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the
medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor
aggravating circumstance. 

. G.R. Nos. L-11128-33        December 23, 1957

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
RENE ESCARES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

Six separate information for robbery were filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against
Salvador Poblador, Armando Gustillo and Rene Escares. When these cases were called for
hearing, Rene Escares was still at large and, by agreement of the parties, they were tried jointly
against Salvador Poblador and Armando Gustillo. After four years, Rene Escares was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty in each of the six above-mentioned cases but later he asked permission
to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and substitute it for a plea of guilty.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of all the crimes charge against him

HELD: The Court finds the accused Rene Escares guilty of the crimes charged in the information
in all these cases sentencing the said accused to twelve (12) years, six (6) months, and one (1)
day in all the cases, with all the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs.

When these cases were called for trial, the accused asked permission to withdraw his former
plea of not guilty and substitute it with that of guilty in all these cases. The Court granted said
petition, and the accused forthwith freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty in all these cases.