People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos.

136164-65, 20 April 2001

FACTS:
On February 17, 1997, Edgar Legaspi was charged with the crimes of rape and robbery in two
separate Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court.
At around 2:00 in the morning of February 11, 1997, Honorata was sleeping inside her house with
her three daughters. She was awakened by the sound of their door opening. She thought it was her
husband. When Honorata opened her eyes, however, she saw a man armed with a knife standing
by her feet. More terrifying, the man already had his pants and briefs down on his knees and he
was pointing to her eldest daughter.
Alarmed, Honorata told the man not to touch her daughter. The man poked his knife at her and
told her to stand up and then was made to lie down on the adjacent sofa. Thereafter, the man
removed Honorata’s panties and had sex with her. All this time, he had his knife at Honorata’s
neck. Honorata noticed that the man reeked of alcohol. After slaking his lust, Honorata’s assailant
stood up then asked for money. Since the man still had his knife pointed at her, Honorata could do
nothing but comply. She gave him the only money she had, several bills amounting to P500.00.
After threatening Honorata and her daughters with death if she reports the incident, the man left.
Honorata, out of fear, could do nothing but close the door. Later that day, however, Honorata
mustered enough courage to narrate her defilement to her sister-in-law.
The trial court found Legaspi guilty of rape and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death.
The supreme penalty of death having been imposed for the rape, the case was elevated to the
Supreme Court on automatic review.
Legaspi prays for his acquittal, raising the following arguments:
• The facial features of Legaspi differ from the description of Honorata’s assailant as found
in the police blotter.
• If Honorata were indeed raped on the sofa of her one-room house, the creaking of the sofa
and her moans would have awakened her three sleeping daughters. Strangely, this did not
happen.
• There is absence of spermatozoa in Honorata’s organ.
• Legaspi also avowed that he had been previously convicted of homicide and Roberto
Eugenio, the victim therein, was a resident of the exact same address where complainant
Honorata was living. Legaspi hinted at the possibility that relatives of Roberto Eugenio
had conspired with complainant Honorata to get rid of him.
• He was asleep at his house at #86 Manapat Street, Tañong, Malabon at the time of the
incident.
• Legaspi claims that he is entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity. To prove his
insanity, Legaspi’s counsel points to his confinement at the National Center for Mental
Health prior to the incident in question.
ISSUE:
Whether the defenses raised by Legaspi are meritorious.
HELD:
• The facial features of Legaspi differ from the description of Honorata’s assailant as found
in the police blotter do not affect the credibility of Honorata’s testimony. It must be kept
in mind that Honorata positively identified Legaspi as her rapist, not only during the
investigation conducted by the police on the morning of January 15, but also during the
trial. During the trial Honorata identified Legaspi as the person who sexually violated her.
She testified that she was able to recognize Legaspi because the fluorescent lamp inside
her house was lit at the time of the incident.
• That Honorata’s daughters, all minors, did not wake up during the assault is not as
incredible as Legaspi would make it out. The failure of the three children to wake up during
the commission of the rape was probably due to the fact that they were sound asleep. It is
not unusual for children of tender ages to be moved from their sleeping mats and transferred
to another bed without eliciting the least protest from them, much less, awakening them.
• The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in the prosecution of a rape case. It
is well-settled that it is penetration, however slight, and not ejaculation, that constitutes
rape
• Legaspi has not presented proof that Honorata knew Roberto Eugenio or his relatives.
Neither has he shown that any relative of Eugenio still resides at Honorata’s address, 27-D
Rivera Street. Moreover, mere residence at the same address is not proof that Honorata
conspired with the relatives of Roberto Eugenio in an attempt to get rid of Legaspi. False
testimony or incriminatory machinations must be proved by evidence more substantial than
a voter’s registration record.
• Legaspi’s defense of alibi must, however, be looked upon with suspicion, not only because
it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated and
concocted. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other
place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
• For insanity to be considered, Paragraph 1, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code requires
a complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act, i.e., that the accused be
deprived of reason, that there be no consciousness of responsibility for his acts, or that
there be complete absence of the power to discern. The defense of insanity or imbecility
must be clearly proved, however, for there is a presumption that acts penalized by law are
voluntary. To prove his insanity, Legaspi’s counsel points to his confinement at the
National Center for Mental Health prior to the incident in question. Likewise, his counsel
claims that when Honorata saw Legaspi, the latter’s pants and briefs were already down on
his knees. He takes this to be an indicium of insanity. Mere prior confinement does not
prove that Legaspi was deprived of reason at the time of the incident. Firstly, Legaspi did
not submit proof that he was adjudged insane by the National Center for Mental Health,
 only that he had been confined therein. Note also that Legaspi had already been discharged
from the Center prior to the incident. Even if Legaspi were adjudged insane prior to the
incident, his discharge implies that he was already considered well.
• Neither does having one’s pants and briefs on one’s knees indicate deprivation of
reason. If anything else, it shows the lechery and depravity of Legaspi. Mental
depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted
condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one
from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.
People v. Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, 23 October 1982
FACTS:
Moises Capalac, the brother of accused Mario Capalac (a police officer), was stabbed by Jimmy
Magaso. Following this incident, in the cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to escape when he was
confronted by the Moises’ brothers (Mario and Jesus1) and 2 other companions2.The attempt of
Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two shots were fired in
succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands
as a sign of surrender, but they were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by Mario, and after
having fallen in the ground, was stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus. He died on the way to
the hospital. Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and treachery.
The lower Court also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer. He was
sentenced to death. Mario appealed, thus this review.

ISSUES:
1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy
b. Treachery
c. Evident premeditation
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication

HELD:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by itself justify
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He acted like a
brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his
kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy
and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his
criminal responsibility.

2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions, apparently
had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all acted in concert.

b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that Jimmy would die. His
situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile and unavailing.
There was also no risk to the aggressors since two other companions assisted them.
c. There is no evident premeditation. The brothers were prompted by their desire to avenge
Moises. They went after Jimmy, assaulted him, and relied on the weapons that they carried.
There was no evidence that they deliberately employed means to add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.

d. There is mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication since the purpose of the crime
was to vindicate the stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.
People v. Gapasin, G.R. No. 73489, 25 April 1994

FACTS:
Gapasin is a member of the Philippine Constabulary.
Prosecution witness Carrido states the ff:
• He left the house of Enteng Teppang to attend the “pamisa” for Teppang’s deceased father.
• Calpito, the victim, was with Carrido.
• While they were walking, Calptio was shot by Gapasin with an armalite rifle.
• When Calpito fell to the ground, Calpito fired more shots at him.
• One of Gapasin’s co-accused them planted a .22 caliber revolver on Calpito’s left hand.
• Faustina, Calpito’s wife, ran to her husband.
• Another of the co-accused, pointed his gun at Faustina.
• All of the accused warned everyone that they would kill any relative of Calpito who would
come near them.

Gapasin’s defense is as follows:

• Invoked self-defense
• He alleged that he was given a mission order to investigate a report re. unidentified armed
men
• He was told to get in touch with all of his co-accused so he can get better information re.
the unidentified armed men.
• He found out that one of those men was Calpito.
• He was supposed to confront Calpito at the pamisa, but his co-accused told him that it
would create a disturbance at the pamisa.
• They decided to confront him on the way home.
• When Gapasin was able to see Calptio going home, Gapasin asked Calpito what was
bulging at Calpito’s waist.
• Instead of answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and
fired twice at appellant, Calpito missed because Gapasin dropped to the ground to simultaneously
fire his armalite.
ISSUE:
WON the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position appreciated in this case.

HELD:
This appeal hinges entirely on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses testimony:
• SC did not bother to interfere with the findings of the CFI
• These are generally accorded great respect
• The fact that the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the victim does not necessarily make
them biased and impair them

Claim of self-defense:
• Gapasin’s claim is disproved by the finding of the CFI that Caplito was shot by someone
who was standing on his RIGHT side.
• Gapasin’s version was that he was in FRONT of Caplito
• The physical evidence re. the gunshots disprove Gapasin’s story

Qualifying Circumstance:
• Treachery attended this case
o The employment of means of execution gives the victim no opportunity to defend
himself or retaliate
o The means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted

Aggravating Circumstances:
• Evident premeditation is also present
o There was proof that the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection
o Prosecution was able to show that “the resolution to carry out the act during a space
of time is sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment”
• Taking advantage of public position
o Gapasin, as member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed a crime with an
armalite which was issued to him when he received his mission order

Circumstance not appreciated:

• Ignominy
o CFI ruled out ignominy as the autopsy shows no physical evidence that other
injuries such as bruises or contusions were inflicted after he was shot
o No evidence to show that Caplito was kicked after he was shot
Mitigating Circumstance:
• Voluntary surrender
o He surrendered to his superiors
o But this is offset with the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public
position

The proper penalty is death accoding to RPC 248 and 64 (3), as only evident premeditation is
appreciated. But the Constitution does not allow the death penalty anymore, hence the penalty is
reclusion perpetua.
People v. Tiongson, G.R. No. L-35123-24, 25 July 1984

FACTS:
Accused escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalaco, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de
la Cruz, and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained for the charge of attempted homicide.
While escaping, Tiongson killed Officer Zosimo Gelera, the guard, and Aurelio Canela, the officer
who pursued them.
Tiongson was charged with murder and he plead guilty to both.

ISSUE:
1. WON there is aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority

HELD:
SC ruled that the crime was Homicide with NO Aggravating Circumstances.
The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Gelera and Canela were the very ones against
whom the crime were committed. Besides, they were not persons in authority, but merely agents
of persons in authority.
People v. Magdueño, G.R. No. L-68699, 22 September 1986

FACTS:
The facts have been established following the testimonies of three eyewitnesses. According to
them, Fiscal Dilig had just sat in the driver seat of his car, parked outside his house. They heard a
shout saying “Fiscal” then two successive gun shots from a stranger. As soon as the shooting
ended, the stranger ran, still holding his gun. At trial, the witnesses identified the shooter as
Magdueño, a recidivist, who was in the area.
Magdueño said that he acted because of the reward posed by two other people. It was also found
that he carried an unlicensed gun.
RTC found Magdueno guilty of murder qualified Murder qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation and aggravated by price or reward and by the crime being committed in contempt
of/or with insult to public authority.

ISSUES:
WON the attached aggravating circumstances were correct.

HELD:
SC states: We have carefully examined the records and considering the testimony of the three
eyewitnesses to the shooting, their positive and categorical Identification of the appellant as the
assailant, the corroborative evidence on the circumstances of the killing, and the more than
coincidental presence of Magdueño in Palawan when he should have been in Manila, we see no
error in the lower court's finding that the appellant committed the crime of murder qualified by
treachery and evident premeditation and aggravated by price and reward. Magdueño, in effect,
also admitted that he was a recidivist at the time of his trial. However, recidivism was not alleged
in the information and makes no difference in the determination of the penalty in this case.
However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority
does not seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it
must not only be shown that the crime was not committed in the presence of the public authority
but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. (U.S. v.
Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150; People v. Rizal, 103 SCRA 282). In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the
public authority involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court, erred in including
commission of the crime with insult to public authority as an aggravating circumstance.
Considering the presence of an aggravating circumstance and the absence of any mitigating
circumstance attending the offense, the lower court imposed the proper penalty on the appellant.
The crime in this case is a particularly heinous one. The appellant is shown by the records as a
heartless contract killer. Upon being paid for a job, he had no compunctions about traveling all
the way to Palawan from Manila, stalking and liquidating an unwary victim whose only fault was
to perform his duties faithfully.
People v. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-89, 26 February 1990.

FACTS:
Violation of Section 1, paragraph (2), of Presidential Decree No. 1866... accused, while acting
under the influence of drugs and without any license or permit from the proper authorities, did...
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control an
unlicensed firearm, a SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber .38 revolver with Serial Number
359323 with Five (5) spent shells and Five (5) live ammunitions and without any... justifiable
cause and with intent to kill, used the said firearm and ammunitions to shoot one Francis Ernest
Escaño... amended information... accused, without any justifiable cause and with intent to kill,
evident premeditation, treachery, while acting under... the influence of drugs, with cruelty and
deliberately augmenting the suffering of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Francis Ernest Escaño
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty in both cases. The two (2) criminal cases were consolidated
upon motion of the prosecution and tried jointly. On 31 July 1986, the trial court rendered a
decision[3] convicting appellant under both informations.
Accused Renato Tac-an y Hipos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions qualified with Murder under Section 1, paragraph 1 and 2 of
Presidential Decree No. 1866... accused Renato Tac-an y Hipos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Batas Pambansa Blg. 179
and P.D. 1866. Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation (treachery
used to qualify the crime to murder) and the special aggravating circumstances of acting while
under the... influence of dangerous drugs and with the use of an unlicensed firearm and with insult
to a person in authority

The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas scheduled for 3:00 p.m. had just started in
Room 15 when Renato suddenly burst into the room, shut the door and with both hands raised,
holding a revolver, shouted "Where is Francis?" Upon sighting Francis seated behind and to...
the right of student Ruel Ungab. Renato fired at Francis, hitting a notebook, a geometry book and
the armrest of Ruel's chair.
Renato proceeded to the teacher's platform nearest the door and for the fourth time fired at Francis
as the latter was rushing towards the door. This time, Francis was... hit on the head and he fell on
the back of Ruel and both fell to the floor.
Renato then went out of Room 15, and paced between Rooms 14 and 15. A teacher, Mr. Pablo
Baluma, apparently unaware that it was Renato who had gunned down Francis, approached
Renato and asked him to help Francis as the latter was still alive inside the room. Renato
thereupon... re-entered Room 15, closed the door behind him, saying: "So, he is still alive. Where
is his chest?"... enato aimed at the chest of Francis and fired once more. The bullet entered
Francis' back below the right... shoulder, and exited on his front chest just above the right nipple.
Renato then left with two (2) remaining students and locked Francis alone inside Room 15. Renato
proceeded to the ground floor and entered the faculty room. There, he found some teachers and
students and ordered them to lock the door and close the windows, in effect holding... them as
hostages.
Renato's brother approached Capt. Lazo and volunteered to persuade his brother to give up.
Renato's father who, by this time had also arrived, pleaded with Renato to surrender himself.
Renato then turned over his gun to his brother... through an opening in the balustrade of the faculty
room. Capt. Lazo took the gun from Renato's brother, went to the door of the faculty room, entered
and placed Renato under arrest.

Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm, a Smith and Wesson
Airweight .38 Caliber revolver with five (5) spent bullets and five (5) live ones and with... having
used such firearm and ammunition to shoot to death Francis Ernest Escaño III
There is nothing in P.D. No. 1866 (which was promulgated on 29 June 1983) which suggests that
it was intended to remain in effect only for the duration of the martial law imposed upon the
country by former President Marcos.

ISSUES:
WON the attaching circumstances were correct.

HELD:
SC States: There is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating
circumstance in homicide or murder. Under an information charging homicide or murder, the fact
that the death weapon was an unlicensed... firearm cannot be used to increase the penalty for the
second offense of homicide or murder to death (or reclusion perpetua under the 1987
Constitution).
We are compelled to agree with the trial court that treachery was here present and that, therefore,
the killing of Francis Ernest Escaño III was murder... e must discard evident premeditation as an
aggravating circumstance.
No medical evidence had been submitted by the prosecution to show... that Renato had smoked
marijuana before gunning down Francis.
The above circumstances pointed to by the trial court may be indicative of passionate anger on
the part of Renato; we do not believe that they necessarily show that Renato had smoked marijuana
before entering his English III class. In the absence of competent medical or other... direct
evidence of ingestion of a dangerous drug, courts must be wary and critical of indirect evidence,
considering the severe consequences for the accused of a finding that he had acted while under
the influence of a prohibited drug. The Court considers that the evidence... presented on this point
was simply inadequate to support the ruling of the trial court that Renato had shot and killed
Francis while under the influence of a prohibited drug.
The trial court held that the shooting to death of Francis had been done "in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities:
"Under Republic Act 1978, as amended, a teacher of a public or private school is considered a
person in authority. The fact that Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, the teacher in mathematics, was already
checking the attendance did not deter the accused from pursuing his evil act. The... accused
ignored his teacher's presence and pleas. Not yet satisfied with the crime and terror he had done
to Francis and the entire school, the accused entered the faculty room and held hostage the
teachers and students who were inside that room. To the court, this act of the... accused was an
insult to his teachers and to the school, an act of callus disregard of others feelings and safety and
completely reprehensible."
We believe the trial court erred in so finding the presence of a generic aggravating circumstance.
Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential
Decree No. 299, provides as follows:
"Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. Who shall be deemed as such.
In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some... court or government
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and
a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
A person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority,
is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader... and any person
who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their... professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.
Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor
of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in authority," such teacher or
professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct... assault upon a
person in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents
of such person) of the Revised Penal Code. In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152
does not identify specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for... the application of which any
person "directly vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in authority." Because a penal
statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called for by the ordinary
meaning of the ordinary words used by such... statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do
not believe that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school may be regarded
as a "public authority" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code,... the provision the trial court applied in the case at bar.
(a) the aggravating circumstances of evident pre-meditation and of having acted with contempt of
or insult to the public authorities shall be DELETED and not taken into account; and (b) the
special aggravating circumstances of... acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs and
with the use of an unlicensed firearm shall similarly be DELETED and not taken into account.
There being no generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances present, the appellant shall
suffer the penalty of... reclusion perpetua.
People v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-24002, 21 January 1974.

FACTS:
Appellant Francisco Diaz admits that he killed Tadia. He justifies the killing on the ground of
self-defense. His younger brother Gerardo denies any participation in the killing. He has set up
the easily contrivable defense of alibi.
As already noted, appellant Francisco Diaz, while assuming sole responsibility for the killing, set
up the exculpatory plea of self-defense. His version was that he and Tadia were
neighbors. Because he did not accede to Tadia's request for a pig, Tadia allegedly... followed him
to his abaca plantation near the Alao River. When Francisco again refused to grant Tadia's request
for the pig, the latter allegedly hacked Francisco with his bolo, wounding him in the hand between
the middle and index fingers and in the left side of his... head. Francisco retreated, but when he
was cornered, "he pulled the trigger of" his shotgun, causing Tadia "to release his bolo". Francisco
then picked up Tadia's bolo (note that Francisco himself had his own bolo). He threw away his
gun and repeatedly stabbed Tadia. After the stabbing he surrendered to the authorities.
The conspiracy between the brothers to kill Tadia may be inferred from the antecedents and
circumstances surrounding the killing. The lascivious or vexatious act committed by Francisco
Diaz on Remegia Carasos was reported to the barrio lieutenant. He advised Tadia to... go to town
and lodge a complaint with the proper authorities. That fact must have been known to Francisco
Diaz. He wanted to forestall that eventuality. To accomplish that objective, he decided to liquidate
Tadia. It was natural or probable that he should... seek the collaboration of his younger brother
Gerardo.
The two brothers appeared together on the cliff on that fateful morning of September 5, 1963 to
ambush Tadia. Gerardo was armed with a deadly weapon that could be employed at a distance
without exposing himself to any immediate retaliatory act of the victim. He... commenced the
assault by firing at Tadia. Then, when Tadia fell down the cliff, Gerardo maliciously induced or
instructed Francisco to continue the assault by stabbing the fallen Tadia. Francisco obeyed that
injunction by inflicting five stab wounds on the... defenseless victim. These circumstances reveal
that the brothers acted in concert, impelled by their common design to kill Tadia. Their liability
for the killing is collective, not individual or separate.

ISSUE:
WON the brothers conspired to kill the victim and whether treachery and evident premeditation
should qualify the killing as murder.
WON the attaching aggravating circumstances are correct.

HELD:
• The crime committed by the appellants is murder qualified by treachery as alleged in the
information. There was treachery (alevosia) because the brothers made a deliberate surprise
 or unexpected assault on Tadia. They literally ambushed him. They waited for him on the
cliff, a high ground which rendered it difficult for him to flee or maneuver in his defense.
Tadia was shot sidewise while he was ascending the hill or cliff burdened by his catopis or
food basket. That was another circumstance which handicapped him in resisting the assault.
The initial attack was successful. Tadia fell and rolled down the cliff and landed near the
creek below. In that helpless state, he was ruthlessly stabbed by Francisco Diaz.

The appellants resorted to means of execution which directly and specially insured the
killing without any risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim could
have made. Actually, he was not able to make any defense unarmed and attacked unawares
as he was. The treacherous mode of attack is incontrovertible

• The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating. There was no evidence that
the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. That
circumstance may be absorbed in treachery

• Premeditation, which was alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance, should

be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance with respect to Francisco Diaz
since treachery has already been used to qualify the killing as murder. In his case, it is
offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities.

• However, with respect to Gerardo Diaz, premeditacion conocida should not be appreciated.
Obviously, he participated in the assault in order to help his elder brother who exercised
some moral ascendancy over him and who was the one directly affected by the embracing
incident which preceded the killing.