Damuag testified that he was driving his motorcycle with Abiabi riding with him at the back.

They
were blocked by a white Tamaraw FX and two motorcycles. One of the riders of the motorcycle
fired two shots in close succession. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle. He noticed another
motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by him and he was thrown off and hit the ground. He then
heard a burst of gunfire from behind. He saw the third motorcycle at a stop and Oco was at the
back of it holding a short firearm in his right hand. He was chased by the third motorcycle and
Oco fired two more shots at Damuag. He was then rushed to the hospital.

Abiabi did not survive.

Damuag testified that he did not recognize the driver and the passenger of the second
motorcycle and the driver of the third motorcycle because they were wearing their helmets.
However, he recognized Oco as one of the triggermen because Oco was not wearing helmet at
the time of the shooting incident.

Barellano, 16-year old candle and flower vendor corroborated Damuag’s idenfication of Oco as
the second gunman.
Ybanez, Jr. claimed that several minutes before the incident, he saw Oco and the three accused
beside two motorcycles
Gamboa claimed that she also saw the three accused and Oco hours before the shooting
incident
Prosecution theorized that the incident was drug-related. The late Abiabi was a known anti-drug
advocate while Oco was a suspected drug lord. The other accused, on the other hand, allegedly
had connections with the drugs trade.
Oco testified that at the time of the incident he was inside a chapel. After going to the chapel, he
proceeded home and went to bed. He was awakened and shocked to learn the death of Abiabi.\

Lozano claimed that he was training fighting cocks at the time of the incident. His companions,
Vic, Prospero, Ritchie, Ramon, and Benedicto corroborated his alibi.

ISSUE: Is the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender present?

RULING: Yes. The presence of the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle would
have raised the penalty to death, pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code, if not for the
presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial court failed to
appreciate.

For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present:

(1) the offender has not been actually arrested;

(2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and

(3) the surrender was voluntary.

Further, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest
of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in search and capture. All these requisites have been complied with
in the case at bar.

The records reveal that the warrant for the appellant’s arrest was issued on January 19,
1998. Immediately upon learning its issuance, and without having been served on him,
the appellant contacted his co-accused PO2 Lozano and communicated his desire to
surrender. PO2 Lozano called City Director, Police Superintendent Alejandro Carpio
Lapinid and voluntarily surrendered himself at around 7:00 p.m. of January 20, 1998. As
per their agreement, the appellant was fetched by SPO2 Perfecto Silvederio Codiñera at
around 12:15 a.m. of January 21, 1998, and was directly brought to the PNP Jail.

Moreover, one of the reasons cited by Judge Ocampo in acting favorably to the request of the
appellant and accused Lozano to be detained at the PNP Jail at Camp Sotero Cabahug,
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City instead of the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC) was
their voluntary surrender.

Finally, the appellant’s testimony as to the circumstances of his voluntary surrender was never
rebutted.

Like any other common criminal, the appellant could have opted to go on hiding. But he
chose to surrender himself to the authorities and face the allegations leveled against
him. True, he did not admit his complicity to the crime charged against him but he
nonetheless spared the government of time and expense. For this, he should be credited
with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. This offsets the aggravating
circumstance of the use of motor vehicle, and pursuant to Art. 63(4) of the Revised Penal Code,
the appellant should be meted the lesser of the two penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua.

For the serious wounding of Damuag, the appellant committed frustrated murder, the same
having been committed with intent to kill and with treachery, as afore explaine

People v. Olovario

Pogay and Panday saw Gulane walking about 5 meters away from them with Oloverio
trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s right shoulder and hacked him on
the chest with a bolo until Gulane collapsed on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly took
Gulane’s money from his pocket
In his defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of the incident, Gulane had been
accusing him of having an incestuous relationship with his mother. He allegedly kept his
cool and told Gulane to go home, but the latter continued to mock him by asking in a
loud voice, "How many times did you have sexual intercourse with your mother?"
He admitted that he stabbed Gulane because he could no longer bear the insulting
remarks against him

Lamoste, then Barangay Captain alleged that Gulane and Oloverio had an altercation
before the incident. He alleged that Oloverio’s daughter had once confided to Oloverio
that Gulane wanted to touch her private parts. About a month later, he allegedly heard
Gulane ask Oloverio "in a joking manner about his incestuous relationship with his
mother." Oloverio allegedly got mad and they ended up fighting, but Lamoste was able
9

to subdue them.

RTC ruled that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was not present
in this case since it could not co-exist with the presence of treachery. The only mitigating
circumstance it found present was of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of passion and

obfuscation?

RULING: Yes.

The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in this case.

42

To be able to successfully plead the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the
accused must be able to prove the following elements:

1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and

2. that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity. 43

The provocation and the commission of the crime should not be so far apart that a
reasonable length of time has passed during which the accused would have calmed
down and be able to reflect on the consequences of his or her actions. What is important
is that the accused has not yet "recovered his normal equanimity" when he committed
the crime.

People v. Manzano

Rezor Juanillo Manzano (accused-appellant) and his elder brother Resurrecion Manzano
(Resurrecion) were charged with murder before the RTC of San Jose, Antique.

To prove his claim of self-defense, the accused-appellant himself testified. SP02 Roberto Javier
(SP02 Javier) of the Hamtic police office took the witness stand to prove that the accused-
appellant voluntarily surrendered.

Lucio Silava (Lucio) throwing stones at his house. The electric lamppost was lighted, thus, the
accused-appellant The accused-appellant immediately went out to inquire from Lucio why he
was throwing stones at his house but Lucio threw a stone at him that hit his right knee and
caused him to fall down. Lucio rushed towards the accused-appellant to stab him with a knife
but was unsuccessful as they grappled for its possession.
ecause Lucio was very drunk, the accused-appellant was able to take hold of the knife, but
blacked out and started stabbing Lucio. Thereafter, the accused-appellant ran away and
proceeded to the house of Reno Manzano (Reno), an elder brother, at Barangay San Angel,
San Jose, Antique, where he also met Resurrecion. The following day, the accused-appellant
surrendered to the police authorities.
Lucio and Victoria were inside their store fronting the accused-appellant's house. Lucio was
having his dinner at the kitchen inside the store while Victoria was watching the store when the
accused-appellant and Resurrecion called out from the gate saying that they would buy
cigarettes.
Both the RTC and the CA appreciated treachery and abuse of superior strength in convicting
the accused-appellant of murder.

Both the RTC and the CA did not appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
ISSUE: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be
appreciated in favor of accused-appellant.

RULING: No. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the

following elements must be present, to wit:
(1) the accused has not been actually arrested;
(2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (
3) the surrender is voluntary.
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself
up and submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes
to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.

Records show that it was Reno who went to the Hamtic police station to request that they
take custody of the accused-appellant who was then in his house.

Undoubtedly, when the police went to Reno's house at San Angel, San Jose, Antique, it
was for the purpose of arresting the accused-appellant and not because he was
surrendering to them voluntarily. Simply put, Reno merely facilitated the accused-
appellant's arrest.

Thus, without the elements of voluntary surrender, and where the clear reasons for the
supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the
surrender is not spontaneous and therefore cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to
serve as a mitigating circumstance.

People v. Macbul

Facts: Appellant pleaded guilty to an information for theft of two sacks of papers valued at P10
belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu  it being also alleged that he was a habitual
delinquent, having been twice convicted of the same crime
The trial court sentenced him to suffer one month and one day of arresto mayor as principal
penalty and two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as additional penalty for
habitual delinquency.

The trial court found two mitigating circumstances: plea of guilty under paragraph 7, and
extreme poverty and necessity under paragraph 10, of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code; but
it took into account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism in imposing the principal as well
as the additional penalty

Issue: Whether or not extreme poverty should be considered as a mitigating circumstance

under Article 13(10) of the RPC. 

Ruling: YES. The trial court considered extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating
circumstance falling within Article 13(10) of the RPC which authorizes the court to consider in
favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned." 

The trial court predicates such consideration upon its finding that the accused, on account of
extreme poverty and of the economic difficulties brought about by the present cataclysm, was
forced to pilfer the two sacks of papers which he sold for P2.50, in order to be able to buy
something to eat for various minor children of his. (The stolen goods were subsequently
recovered.)

The Court recognized the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere
property right. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat
the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life.

Palagas
Servillano, Melton and Michael Ferrer were in Tidbits Videoke bar having a good time, singing and
drinking beer. Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista.
When Jaime Palaganas was singing, [Melton] Ferrer sang along with him as he was familiar with the
song [My Way]. Jaime however, resented this and said "As if you are tough guys." Jaime further said
"You are already insulting me in that way." Then, Jaime struck Servillano Ferrer with the
microphone, hitting the back of his head. A rumble ensued between the Ferrer brothers and the
Palaganases.

RUDJEC DEFENSE : at home sleeping, ferdiant came, got a gun.

 Rujjeric then noticed that Ferdinand was carrying a gun, and, on instinct, grabbed the gun from the
latter, faced the Ferrer brothers and fired one shot in the air to force the brothers to retreat. Much to
his surprise, however, the Ferrer brothers continued throwing stones and when (sic) the appellant
was again hit several times. Unable to bear the pain, he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger.

The RTC rendered its Decision finding petitioner guilty only of the crime of Homicide and two (2)
counts of Frustrated Homicide while Ferdinand was acquitted. Moreover, it also found that the
petitioner used an unlicensed firearm in shooting the Ferrer brothers. As regards the Violation of
COMELEC Resolution No. 2958, in relation to Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code, the trial
court acquitted the petitioner of the offense as his use and possession of a gun was not for the
purpose of disrupting election activities.

ISSUE: Should the use of an unlicensed firearm be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

RULING: YES.  It must be considered as a special aggravating circumstance, and not a generic
aggravating circumstance.

// eneric aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those
mentioned in Article 14, paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the Revised
Penal Code. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it
cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged and charged in the
information, and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset
by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
On the other hand, special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under special
conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot
increase the penalty to the next higher degree.//

Aside from the aggravating circumstances above mentioned, there is also an aggravating
circumstance provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No.
8294, which is a special law. Its pertinent provision states:

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of
an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

With the passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in
murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a
generic aggravating circumstance.

People v. Manansala

Pat. Colmo and his girlfriend, Nisperos, were sitting at one end of a bench in a shed located at
the Food Terminal Compound. They were waiting for a ride home. Seating at the other end of
the bench were three men who were talking among themselves. Nisperos was looking at the
approaching bus they were to take when she heard a shot. She saw Colmo slumped on the
ground with a bleeding head. One of the three men pointed a gun at her. The assailant took the
pistol from Pat. Colmo and fled.

Manansala was investigated for the offense. He was charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide committed in conspiracy with two unidentified persons and with the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. After trial, he was
found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Manansala questions Nisperos’ credibility she hesitated and could not readily point to him as the
assailant.
Manansala testified that at the time of incident he was not in Bicutan but in Caloocan and that
he was in the house of a certain Bodomo and did not leave the house until the following
morning.

ISSUE: Is treachery present in the killing?

RULING: Yes, as the victim was shot from behind. Dr. Moraleda, who performed the
autopsy on the cadaver, testified that the fata bullet entered the back of Colmo’s head
and passed through his mouth. There is alevosia when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from any defense which the offended party might make. Colmo never knew what him and
was totally unprepared for the attack that caused his death.

ISSUE: Is evident premeditation present in the killing?

RULING: No. Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In such an
offense, the evident premeditation must relate to the killing and not to the robbery.

Watatamama

Appellant Watamama and his co-accused Midtimbang were charged for murder. Based on the
records, Midtimbang remained at large.

Arobo, Calim, and 5 other farmers were at the farm of Samad. They were ploughing, while
Samad was tending his corn plants. Arobo was 5 meters ahead of Calim when the former heard
gunfire coming from behind. Arobo immediately looked to the rear and saw Midtimbang and
appellant firing garand rifles at Calim, who was then slumped near his plow. Because of the
successive gunshots, Arobo and the rest of their group scampered to take cover, while Samad
ran towards the nipa. Appellant and Midtimbang also fired at Samad, but he was not hit.
5

Thereafter, the 2 fled. Samad then reported the incident to a barangay kagawad.
The version of the defense was that appellant was simply mistaken for Teng Midtimbang
because of their physical and facial resemblances. Appellant claimed that his real name was
Akmad Salipada, not Matimanay Watamama.

 he was at their house. He had just eaten breakfast with his wife Guianila, when they heard
seven gunshots. Guianila peeped through their window and, after a while, Teng Midtimbang and
Ali Sampo Midtimbang passed by their house. The 2 were carrying rifles. Guianila asked them
where they had come from, and they supposedly told her that they came from the house of
Calim and that they shot him because he had stolen a carabao.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Moreover, the
trial court ruled that evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crime,
as the evidence showed that the assailants had planned to kill Calim, a known cattle rustler, and
that their attack was so sudden that it foreclosed any defense by the victim
Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his participation
in the killing of Calim. Moreover, he maintained that the prosecution failed to establish treachery
and evident premeditation, since none of its witnesses testified on how the attack on Calim
commenced and in what mode.
Tayuan, a detention prisoner, also testified for the defense that he had witnessed the
Midtimbang brothers kill Calim, He claimed that he was about 6 meters from the Midtimbang
brothers when they shot Calim to death. On cross-examination, however, Tayuan admitted that
10
Sitio Maitum was about 5 kilometers away from Sitio Matingao, and that their common boundary
was a mountain.
The CA affirmed appellant’s conviction for the crime of murder in view of the presence of
treachery but ruled that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
OSG maintained that the fact that the prosecution witnesses did not see the precise moment
when Calim was shot to death did not create any doubt as to the appellant’s identity as one of
the assailants. The OSG also maintained that the prosecution sufficiently established treachery,
since the witnesses’ testimonies clearly showed that Calim was engrossed in farm work when
appellant and Midtimbang attacked him

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was correctly convicted of the crime of murder?

RULING: No, but only homicide.

For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the offender
killed the victim, and (2) the killing was done through treachery, or by any of the five other
qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons by employing
means, methods or forms that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to
the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make.
For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the
inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the
perpetration of an attack with treachery cannot be presumed.

We cannot simply assume that at its inception, Calim was unable to parry the attack, as he was
caught unaware. Both Arobo and Samad admitted that they did not see how the attack
commenced, and that it was the initial gunfire that caught their attention. Thus, it cannot be said
with certainty that the victim was engrossed in his farm work when he was initially attacked.

Neither can we conclusively say that there was no chance or opportunity for Calim to defend
himself from aggression.

Without evident premeditation, and without any evidence to appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of treachery in the killing of Calim, respondent can only be held liable as principal
for the crime of homicide.

People vs. Jenny Likiran

Jenny Likiran (accused-appellant) was convicted of the crime of Murder for the death of
Rolando Sareno, Sr. (Sareno ).

. It was the eve of the town fiesta and a dance was being held at the basketball court.
Prosecution witnesses Celso Dagangon (Dagangon), Prescado Mercado (Mercado) and
Constancio Goloceno (Goloceno) testified that on said night, they were at the dance together
with Sareno at around
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.
The 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.
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the accused-appellant’s culpability.
Prosecution witness Dagangon’s positive identification of the accused-appellant was held
sufficient by the RTC to convict the latter of the crime of murder.
The CA sustained the findings of the RTC as regards the identity of the accused-appellant as
one of the perpetrators of the crime.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of murder.

RULING: No. The accused is only guilty of the lesser crime of homicide. 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 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. 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

In this case, 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

Miguel Cirera vs. People

Petitioner was found guilty of two (2) counts of frustrated murder and sentenced him to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to 17 years and four (4) months of reclusion temporalas maximum for each count.
The RTC ruled that petitioner’s acts were not attended by evident premeditation. However, there
was treachery on petitioner’s end, considering the length of time it took private complainants to
realize that they were stabbed.

Romeo Austria testified that at around 8:30 a.m. on April 20, 2000, he was playing a lucky nine
game at a wake. Miguel arrived, asking money from Austria so he could buy liquor. In response,
Austria asked Miguel to keep quiet. Gerardo Naval arrived and asked Austria to go home. There
was an exchange of words between Naval and Miguel. Austria stood up and felt that he was
stabbed. As he ran home, he noticed Miguel armed with a knife chasing Naval. On cross-
examination, Austria testified that he saw Miguel attempt to stab him again. 

Naval testified that Miguel was irked when he asked Austria to go home. After he and Miguel
had an exchange of words, he felt a hard blow on his back. Naval retaliated; however, he ran
away when he saw Miguel holding a knife. Miguel chased Naval who fell on the ground. When
Naval saw that Miguel was about to stab him again, he hit him with a bench and left him lying on
the ground, unable to stand. According to Naval, he did not see the knife land on his back. 

Version of the defense

Miguel testified that he saw private complainants at a wake. Naval tapped his back and asked,
"Anong problema mo?" to which he answered, "Wala naman." Thereafter, Naval punched
Miguel. As he was about to stand up, he was hit by a hard object on his head, causing him to
lose consciousness. He was brought to UERM Memorial Hospital where Naval identified him
and brought him to the station. Miguel also testified that only Naval identified him at the hospital.

Issue: Whether or not treachery, as a qualifying circumstance, is present in this case.

The requisites of treachery are:

(1) The employment of means,method, or manner of execution which will ensure the
safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and

(2) Deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution

The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the
attack was intended to kill another as long as the victim’s position was merely accidental. The
means adopted must have been a result of a determination to ensure success in committing the
crime. In this case, no evidence was presented to show that petitioner consciously adopted or
reflected on the means, method, or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage.

The attack might have been done on impulse or as a reaction to an actual or imagined
provocation offered by the victim. In this case, petitioner was not only dismissed by Austria
when he approached him for money. There was also an altercation between him and Naval.
The provocation might have been enough to entice petitioner to action and attack private
complainants.
there was no evidence of a modicum of premeditation indicating the possibility of choice and
planning fundamental to achieve the elements of treachery.

the ability of the offended parties to have avoided greater harm by running away or by being
able to subdue the accused is a strong indicator that no treachery exists.

Amora
., Anselmo, Aurelio, and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to Sampol Market., Anselmo,
Aurelio, and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to Sampol Market

They saw appellant Virgilio Amora in his store located on the right side of the street. Suddenly,
appellant rushed towards them and stabbed Romeo twice - one on the chest and another on the
abdomen. They were all caught by surprise due to the suddenness of the attack. Romeo fell to the
ground while appellant quickly ran away from the scene

Romeo died due to two fatal stab wounds.

The RTC convicted appellant of the crime of murder. It found that the stabbing of Romeo was
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as it was "sudden and unexpected such that
[Romeo] was unable to react or defend himself from the assault of appellant."

The CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Was the killing of Romeo attended by treachery?

"The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or escape."

In this case, the appellant’s sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was
employed in the commission of the crime. The eyewitnesses were all consistent in declaring that the
appellant in such a swift motion stabbed Romeo such that the latter had no opportunity to defend
himself or to fight back. The deliberate swiftness of the attack significantly diminished the risk to
himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the victim.

It is of no consequence that appellant was in front of Romeo when he thrust the knife to his torso.
Records show that appellant initially came from behind and then attacked Romeo from the front. In
any event, "[e]ven a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed
victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it,"

ELPIDIO

Elpidio) was outside the house of his sister Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita) in Pandacan, Manila
when all of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's son, Winston, throwing invectives at him. Thus,
Elpidio confronted Isabelita but she also cursed him, which prompted the former to slap the
latter. On that occasion, Elpidio was under the influence of alcohol.

The Barangay Chairman heard what transpired and went to the place where the commotion
was taking place in order to pacify those who were involved. Elpidio was eventually persuaded
to go home where he drank some coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went back to the house of Isabelita
to offer reconciliation

Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a tomahawk axe when the latter was
about to go out of the house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to take the
tomahawk axe from Gary. Elpidio walked away from Titus but Gary, still armed with the
tomahawk axe and Salvador, with his arnis, including Titus, chased him.
Despite attempts of the neighbors to pacify the situation, they continued to maul Elpidio
forcing him to play dead. Elpidio was subsequently brought to the Emergency Room of
PGH.
Thus, a case for Attempted Murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code, was filed against Salvador Iguiron, Titus Malicse Iguiron, Saligan
Malicse Iguiron, Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballesteros, Eugene Surigao and petitioners
Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva.
During trial, one of the accused, Salvador Iguiron died. Eventually, the trial court, in a
Decision, acquitted Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros but found
Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted
Murder. 
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied by the same court.

ISSUE: Did the prosecution prove the aggravating circumstance of treachery?

RULING: NO.

From the facts proven by the prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus,
the second element of treachery is wanting. The incident, which happened at the
spur of the moment, negates the possibility that the petitioners consciously adopted
means to execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where the attack was not
preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation
on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.

ISSUE: Are the accused still liable of murder despite the lack of treachery?
RULING: YES. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS PRESENT.

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces

between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in
the commission of the crime

To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. " The appreciation of
this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties
While there was no treachery in the instance case, The RTC, however, was correct in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
People vs. Daniel Villa Matibag

Matibag was charged with the crime of Murder when he shot Duhan. The special aggravating
circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm is also alleged in the Information.

Duhan, who just came from a meeting with the other officers of the homeowner’s
association of Twin Villa Subd., was walking along the street when Matibag confronted
him, and asked, “Ano bang pinagsasabi mo?” Duhan replied “wala,” and without
warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan on the left cheek and causing him to
teeter backwards. Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan, who fell face-first on
the pavement. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him several more
times.

P02 Falejo positively identified Matibag and stated that he arrested him.

Dr. Vertido who conducted an autopsy on Duhan confirmed that the latter suffered GSW
in the head and chest which led to his death

uhan pushed it away and said, “putang ina mo, ang yabang mo,” thereby provoking Matibag to
punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull something from his waist and fearing that it was
a gun and Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately drew his own gun, and shot
Duhan.

RTC convicted Matibag as charged. Separately, the RTC appreciated the existence of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery since the attack was sudden, unprovoked, and without any
warning on the victim who was unarmed and in a defenseless position. Likewise, the special
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was appreciated since a firearm was
used in the commission of a crime and, hence, considered unlicensed. CA affirmed Matibag’s
conviction in toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Is treachery present in the killing?

RULING: Yes

n People v. Perez, it was explained that a frontal attack does not necessarily rule out
treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so
sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her
defense.

In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, who was armed with a gun,
confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest.
Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was
made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was
unarmed. Matibag also failed to prove that a heated exchange of words preceded the
incident so as to forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from his assailant. The
deliberateness of Matibag’s act is further evinced from his disposition preceding the
moment of execution. As the RTC aptly pointed out, Matibag was ready and destined to
effect such dastardly act, considering that he had an axe to grind when he confronted
Duhan, coupled with the fact that he did so, armed with a loaded handgun.

ISSUE: Is the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm attendant in the
case?

RULING: Yes. Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA)
8294,36 treats the unauthorized use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of
homicide or murder as a special aggravating circumstance