G.R. No.

149372             September 11, 2007

RICARDO BACABAC, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

PONENTE:

Justice Carpio Morales

FACTS:

 Bacabac’s failure to assist the victims after the shooting reinforces this Court’s appreciation of
community of design between him and his co-accused to harm the victims.
 Following a heated argument in a dance hall which resulted in a brawl, Jose Talanquines, Jr., and
Edzel Talanquines, herein referred to as Talanquines brothers, proceeded to confront their
enemies armed with guns.
 The Talanquines brothers shot Quidato and Selibio. Quidato and Selibio later died from their
wounds.

RTC Decision

The Talanquines brothers, together with Jonathan Bacabac, Pat. Ricardo Bacabac, and Jesus
Delfin was charged and found guilty of the crime of Murder.

Petitioner Counter-argument
Bacabac alleged that even if he was convicted of Murder, in gratis argumenti, the correctness of
the pronouncement of guilt should have been attended by the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense, in the same manner as the other accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense should
be affirmed.

HELD:

As for petitioner's invocation of the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave

offense, it fails. For such mitigating circumstance to be credited, the act should be, following Article 13,
paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (d, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree. By Edzel's own clarification, he was
hit at his ear, not on his head. That act would certainly not be classified as "grave offense." And Edzel is
petitioner's nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity "within the same degree" contemplated in Article
13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the appellate court's decision is AFFIRMED.

G.R. Nos. 54344-45 January 10, 1994

People, plaintiff-appellee vs. Amaguin, accused-appellants.

PONENTE:

Bellosillo, J.

FACTS:

 This case resulted in the bloodshed between the Oro brothers and the Amaguin brothers.
 In the afternoon of 24 May 1977, Hernando Oro and his brothers Diosdado and Danilo,
brother-in-law Rafael Candelaria, a first cousin Sergio Argonzola were invited by their
eldest brother Pacifico to the latter's house in the interior of Divinagracia Street, La Paz,
Iloilo City, for a small gathering to celebrate the town fiesta.
 Gildo, Celso's younger brother, with a knife tucked to his waist, followed with a slingshot known
as "Indian pana" or "Indian target". While Gildo aimed the dart from his slingshot at Danilo,
which hit the latter on the chest, Celso hacked Pacifico.
 Gildo then stabbed Diosdado with a knife. Thereafter, Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin
brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively shot the brothers Pacifico,
Diosdado and the fleeing Danilo.
 Diosdado, own kneeling, gasping for breath and pleading for his life, was again shot by
Willie who next fired anew at Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed
Pacifico who already lying prostrate and defenseless.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it can appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

HELD:

Yes. Supreme Court agree with accused-appellants' view that voluntary surrender should be
appreciated in their favor. While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning
themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities before arrest could be
effected. Willie Amaguin is guilty of homicide aggravated by abuse of superior strength but offset by the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and he is guilty of frustrated homicide likewise
aggravated by abuse of superior strength but offset by voluntary surrender. For the homicide, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender which, as earlier mentioned, offsets the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, the maximum penalty should be taken from the medium of the imposable penalty, which is
reclusion temporal the range of the medium period of which is 14 years 8 months and 1 day to 17 years
and 4 months, while the minimum should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is
prision mayor in any of its periods.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

The decision of the court a quo finding the accused-appellants WILLIE AMAGUIN and GILDO
AMAGUIN guilty of homicide.

DOCTRINE:

For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following elements

must be present:
 1. the offender has not been actually arrested
2. the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
3. the surrender must be voluntary.

G.R. No. 140937      February 28, 2001

EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

PONENTE:

Mendoza, J.

FACTS:

Narciso Gabriel owns a cow that was passed on from one person to another and each person
was responsible for the care and custody of the said cow. At the time the cow got lost, it was under
the care and custody of Gardenio Agapay.

 Agapay took the cow in the mountain of Pilipogan, 40 meters away from his hut, at around 5:00
in the afternoon. 
 When he came back to get the cow at past 9 in the evening, the cow was gone. However,
Aagapay saw footprints that led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos.
 Vallejos told Agapay that Exuperancio Canta took the cow. Agapay and Maria were instructed by
Narciso to get the cow and on their way to Florenitno Canta's house, they saw Exuperancio.
 The latter told them that if it was really Narciso who was the owner of the cow, he should get it
himself. Exuperancia accompanied the two to his father's house and both recognized the cow
but Florentino was not home.
 The matter was reported to the police and Narciso and Exuperancio were called for
investigation. Exuperancio admitted taking the cow but claims that he was the real owner of the
cow and that it was lost on December 3, 1985.

RTC Decision

Exuperancio Canta guilty of violation of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law of 1974.

CA Decision

Exuperancio filed a Motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Court of Appeals and
affirmed the trial court's decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is voluntary surrender on the case.

HELD:
 SC contend that the decision of the Court of Appeals should be modified because accused-
appellant should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender.
The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the following elements:

 the offender has not actually been arrested

 the offender surrenders to a person in authority or to the latter's agent
 the surrender is voluntary.

In the present case, petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not actually been arrested. In fact, no
complaint had yet been filed against him when he surrendered the cow to the authorities. In petitioner's
case, he voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in the
custody of the authorities and thus saved them the trouble of having to recover the cow from him. This
circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should be considered in favor of
petitioner.

DOCTRINE:

For surrender to be voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the
authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his search and
capture would require.

G.R. No. 135222. March 04, 2005

PETER ANDRADA, Petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PONENTE:

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

FACTS:

 Sgt. Sumabong and two of his companions, Sgt. Gaces and Cpl. Arsenio Ugerio, went to Alcete’s
boarding house, arriving there past midnight. However, according to Alcate, the suspicious
persons have left. On their way back to the camp at around 1:15 in the morning, the group
dropped by Morlow’s Restaurant, Bokawkan Street, Baguio City, for a snack. They ordered
coffee and sandwiches.
 Petitioner heeded Sgt. Sumabong’s advice for he paid his bill and left the restaurant with his
companions. While Sgt. Sumabong was paying his bill, he heard Cpl. Ugerio, seated about a
meter away, moaning in pain.
 When Sgt. Sumabong turned around, he saw Cpl. Ugerio sprawled on the floor. Petitioner was
hacking him on the head with a bolo. Sgt. Sumabong approached them but petitioner ran away,
followed by a companion. Sgt. Sumabong chased them but to no avail.

ISSUE:

Whether he is entitled to any mitigating circumstance.

HELD:
 Evidence for the prosecution shows that petitioner, after attacking the victim, ran away. He was
apprehended by responding police officers in the waiting shed at the corner of Cambas Road and
Magsaysay Avenue. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous,
made in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
that would be necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Here, the surrender was not spontaneous.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

The petition is denied. The decision of CA is affirmed.

G.R. No. 178145               July 7, 2014

REYNALDO S. MARIANO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PONENTE:

Justice Bersamin

FACTS:

 Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner type jeep along Brgy. Engkanto, Angat, Bulacan. With
him were his wife, Urbanita, and their two-year-old son. Reynaldo Mariano was driving his red
Toyota pick-up with his wife, and their helper. The pick-up overtook the jeep of Ferdinand de
Leon and almost bumped it.
 Ferdinand got mad, overtook the pick-up and blocked its path. Reynaldo stopped the pick up
behind the jeep. Ferdinand alighted from his jeep and approached Reynaldo. Ferdinand claimed
that he and Reynaldo had an altercation.
 However, Reynaldo insisted that he just stayed inside the pick-up and kept quiet while
Ferdinand hurled invectives of him. Urbanta tried to pacify Ferdinand and sought the assistance
of Luis de Leon.
 Ferdinand and Reynaldo heeded the advice of Luis and they went their separate ways.
 Ferdinand decided to drop by his mother's house in San Roque, Angat to pick up some items. He
parked his jeep in front of the house of his mother and alighted therefrom.
 However, he was bumped by a moving vehicle, thrown four (4) meters away and lost
consciousness. Urbanita identified the fast moving vehicle that bumped Ferdinand as the same
red Toyota pick-up driven by Reynaldo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor
of the petitioner.

HELD:

No. Under Article 365, the carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the
wrongful act may vary from one situation to another, in nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and
in order that there may be a fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must have ample
discretion in its imposition, without being bound by what we may call the mathematical formula provide
for in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. On the basis of this particular provision, the trial court was
not bound to apply paragraph 5 of Article 64 in the instant case even if appellant had two mitigating
circumstances in his favor with no aggravating circumstance to offset them.

In its decision, the CA found that Ferdinand had sustained multiple facial injuries, a fracture of the
inferior part of the right orbital wall, and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma; that
he had become stupor us and disoriented as to time, place and person. Ferdinand's physical injuries
were those under Article 263,3, for having incapacitated him form the performance of the work in which
he was habitually engaged in for more than 90 days. Conformably with Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code, the proper penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which ranges from one
to four months. The Court holds that the straight penalty of two months of arresto mayor was the
correct penalty for the petitioner.

G.R. No. 73489 April 25, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, alias "Olit", AMOR SALUDARES,
FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, accused, CIC LORETO GAPASIN, accused-
appellant.
PONENTE:
           Quiason, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, alias "Olit", AMOR
SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, accused, CIC LORETO GAPASIN
Victim: Jerry Calpito
 That on or about the 6th day of October, 1979, at Barangay San Jose, municipality of Roxas,
province of Isabela, Philippines, the accused CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES,
LORENZO SORIANO alias Olit, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK
SALUDARES, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another, with intent to
kill, attack and shoot Jerry Calpito, with an Armalite rifle duly issued to the accused PC soldier
under Memorandum Receipt dated September 17, 1979 by the 118th PC Company, inflicting
multiple gunshot wounds on the body of the latter, step and kick the victim several times,
causing his instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased Jerry Calpito in the amount of P12,000.00,
Philippine Currency.
 According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of
Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 P.M. of October 6, 1979 after attending the "pamisa" for the
deceased father of Teppang. 
 Jerry Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the barangay road, Calpito was shot
by appellant with an armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant fired more shots
 at him. Thereafter, accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of
Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran to succor her fallen husband.
CA Decision
                       Affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
            Whether or not all the accused is guilty with a crime included in aggravating circumstances. 
HELD:
Yes. Had appellant and Nicanor Saludares, Sr. not intended to harm the victim, they could have
simply apprehended him. Or, having verified that Calpito possessed an unlicensed firearm, appellant
could have reported the matter to his superiors so that warrants for Calpito's arrest and the seizure of
his unlicensed firearm could have been obtained. Evident premeditation was indubitably proven by the
evidence showing that the execution of the criminal case was preceded by cool thought and reflection.
Appellant's resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
clear judgment was shown.
ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff Accused

A witness, related to the victim saw All the accused pleaded NOT GUILTY. The police officer, one
the actual incident that the accused of the accused argued that they were just going to
was the culprit of the crime. apprehend the victim for illegal possession of firearms.

 
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, with the
attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstances of
taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation. 
PRINCIPLES:
To be considered as an aggravating circumstance and thereby resultantly increase the criminal
liability of an offender, the same must accompany and be an integral part or concomitant of the
commission of the crime specified in the information.

G.R. Nos. L-35123-24 July 25, 1984

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUDY TIONGSON, defendant-appellant.
PONENTE:
            Concepcion Jr, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Rudy Tiongson
Victim: Pat. Zosimo Gelera
 
 At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, the accused Rudy Tiongson escaped
from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la Cruz and
Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in
the act of escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police
force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC Constable
Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who went in
pursuit of them.
RTC Decision
Convicted of homicide.
CA Decision
                        Reversed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
            Whether or not the accused can be held guilty of murder.
HELD:
No. the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since
there is no direct evidence that the accused employed superior strength in the killing of Pat. Gelera. The
accused was then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat. Gelera had his service pistol with him. With
respect to PC Constable Canela, the accused was alone against three armed pursuers, namely: PC Sgt.
Saway, PC Constable Canela, and Pat Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian by the name of Fred Barcelona.
The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being must be proved in
an evident and incontestable manner, mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not
being sufficient to consider them justified. Thus, in the case of U.S. vs. Barbosa,  the Court said that
"since the case does not furnish any evidence to the effect that Barbosa had formed the deliberate,
premiditated intention to take the life of his wife, and there was no eyewitness as to the manner in
which the deceased was strangled, consequently there is no provision of law under which we can hold
that the crime was committed with treachery, and it must be borne in mind that the qualifying
circumstances of a crime in its commission, in order to be considered, must be established by
competent evidence as well as the crime to which they relate. 
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
RUDY TIONGSON, conspiring and confederating with Rolando Santiago and George de la Cruz,
who are both at large by reason of their forced escape, and with treachery, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously waited in ambush, waylaid and shot one C2C AURELIO M. CANELA, a member of the local
Philippine Constabulary Command, while the latter was in hot pursuit of said accused who had earlier
escaped from custody, thus fatefully resulting to the instantaneous death of the victim.
That the commission of the offense was qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by
the circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with ingult to the public authorities,
nocturnity, committed in an uninhabited place and with abuse of superior strength.
DOCTRINE:
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.

G.R. No. 184500               September 11, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PIIILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WENCESLAO NELMIDA "ESLAO," and RICARDO AJOK "PORDOY," Accused-Appellants.
PONENTE:
            Perez, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Wenceslao Nelmida and Ricardo Ajok
Victim: of PO3 De la Cruz, T/Sgt. Dacoco, PFC Haron Angni, PFC Gapor Tomanto, Juanito Ibunalo,
Mosanip Ameril and Macasuba Tandayao
 That on or about the 5th day of June 2001, at SAN MANUEL, Lala, Lanao del Norte, Philippines
the above-named appellants and their co-accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, armed with assorted high-powered firearms and hand-grenade, by then
and there firing and shooting them with said high-powered firearms thereby inflicting upon the
persons of PO3 De la Cruz, T/Sgt. Dacoco, PFC Haron Angni, PFC Gapor Tomanto, Juanito
Ibunalo, Mosanip Ameril and Macasuba Tandayao gunshot wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of the death of PO3 De la Cruz and T/Sgt. Dacoco and the serious wounding of
said PFC Haron Angni, PFC Gapor Tomanto, Juanito Ibunalo, Mosanip Ameril and Macasuba
Tandayao that without the medical assistance would have caused their deaths, while Mayor
Johnny Tawan-tawan and Jun Palanas were not hit.
RTC Decision
Convicted of murder.
CA Decision
                        Affirmed with modifications in toto by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
            Whether or not all there is evident premeditation and treachery that is manifested.
HELD:
The element of evident premeditation is manifested by the careful planning and preparation
undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime. A perusal of the evidence on record
shows that the altercation between appellant Duavis and Dante Largado, Sr. took place at around 3:00
o'clock in the afternoon of May 2, 2003, and the hacking incident took place at around 5:30 in the
afternoon of the same day. To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the decision and the
execution is not sufficient to allow appellant to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior to the commission of the crime. Although it
may be argued that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of appellant Duavis, it was not
proved to be evident. 
Supreme Court further finds that the qualifying circumstance of treachery is not present in the
instant case because evidence on record show that appellant Duavis chased Dante Largado, Sr. before
the latter was hacked; hence, it cannot be concluded that appellant Duavis employed means of
execution which gives Dante Largado, Sr. no opportunity to retaliate or escape. Moreover, the location
of the hack wound on the left side of the face of the victim will also show that a frontal attack was made.
ARGUMENTS

Petitioner Defendant

Prosecution laid out witnesses during the Defense pleaded not guilty and stated a different
commission of the crime. scenario than the prosecution.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered finding
herein appellants Wenceslao and Ricardo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double
murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder.
PRINCIPLES:
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. For it to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: 
1. the time when the accused determined to commit the crime
2.  an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination
3. sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the circumstances of his act.
To appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present, namely the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and the
means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

G.R. No. 190861               December 7, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
LINO L. DUAVIS, Appellant.
 PONENTE:
            Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Lino L. Duavis
Victim: Dante Largado, Sr.
 Around 5:30 in the afternoon of May 2, 2003, Dante Largado, Sr. was walking towards the
direction of his house at Barangay Balire, Tunga, Leyte. Appellant was running behind Largado,
Sr. carrying a long bolo about twenty-four (24) inches in length. Thereafter, appellant hacked
Largado, Sr., hitting him on the face, leaving a wound so severe that he immediately fell to the
ground and caused his instantaneous death.
 Dante Largado, Jr., who was only a few meters from the place of the incident, shouted to
appellant "Why did you do that to my father?" Appellant replied, "You have no business on this,
son of a bitch." Dante Largado, Jr. then shouted for help, but nobody responded. Alex Davocol, a
neighbor of Largado, Sr., saw the incident and called the police station

RTC Decision
Convicted of murder.
CA Decision
                        Affirmed with modification in toto by Court of Appeals
ISSUE:
            Whether or not the accused can be held guilty of murder.
HELD:
Clearly, the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is wanting. It must be
remembered that the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness
of that of the prosecution for, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after
the accused himself has admitted the killing. 
ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff Accused

There are witnesses that saw the incident, including the The appellant argues the circumstance of
son of the victim. self-defense. 

 
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and the amendatory provision of Sec. 11, R.A. No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), the Court
found accused LINO DUAVIS y LABARDA, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER.
G.R. No. 177751               January 7, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER, FRANKLIN AGACER and ERIC AGACER, Accused-
Appellants.
 PONENTE:
            Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Florencio Agacer,* Eddie Agacer, Elynor Agacer, Franklin Agacer and Eric*** Agacer, 
Victim: Cesario Agacer
 
 That on or about April 2, 1998, in the municipality of Sta. Ana, Province of Cagayan, accused,
armed with a long firearm, a bow and arrow, a bolo and stones, with intent to kill, with evident
premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together and helping one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stone and shoot one Cesario Agacer,
inflicting upon the latter [bruises] and multiple gunshot wounds in his body which caused his
death. That the killing was aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm.
RTC Decision
Convicted of murder.
CA Decision
                        Partially granted with modifications in toto by Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
            Whether or not there is a treachery on the crime that was affirmed.
HELD:
Yes. An unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put
up a defense is the essence of treachery. It is the suddenness of the attack coupled with the inability of
the victim to defend himself or to retaliate that brings about treachery; consequently, treachery may
still be appreciated even if the victim was facing the assailant. The trial court found the prosecution's
evidence sufficient to prove appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It held that appellants acted in
conspiracy in inflicting upon Cesario, in a treacherous manner, multiple gunshot wounds. 
ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff Accused

Prosecution witnesses narrated that all the The appellants denied the accusations against them
accused was the perpetrator for the murder and claimed that Florencio only acted in self-defense
of the victim. and in defense of relatives.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the November 17, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01543 which affirmed the August 7, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8,
Aparri, Cagayan, finding appellants Florencio, Franklin, Elynor, Eddie and Eric, all surnamed Agacer.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, with the modifications.
DOCTRINE:
The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves the victim unable to
defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense.
G.R. No. 192251               February 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS, SR., BENEDICTO DOCTOR, and NESTOR GATCHALIAN, Accused-
Appellants.
PONENTE:
            Velasco Jr, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS, SR., BENEDICTO DOCTOR, and NESTOR GATCHALIAN.
Victim: Estrella Doctor Casco
 That on or about July 19, 2006, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Municipality of
Mayantoc, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, accused with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot several times one Estrella Doctor
Casco which [caused] her instantaneous death.
RTC Decision
Convicted of murder.
CA Decision
                       Partly granted with modification in toto by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
            Whether or not all the accused can be held guilty of murder.
HELD:
Yes. The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to prove appellants' guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. It held that appellants acted in conspiracy in inflicting upon the victim.
As to Nestor Gatchalian, one of the accused, partially granted by the Court of Appeals stated,
mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan and acquiescence thereto are not
sufficient grounds to hold a person as a conspirator. Lacking sufficient evidence of conspiracy and there
being doubt as to whether appellant acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice, the doubt should be
resolved in his favor and is thus held liable only as an accomplice.
Where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to
whether the appellant acted as principal or as accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder
form of criminal liability that of a mere accomplice.
ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff Accused

Relative witnesses of the victim narrated the incident that lead to the Pleaded not guilty to the
identification of all the accused in the case. crime charged.

 
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
           WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby PARTLY GRANTED as to appellant NESTOR GATCHALIAN.
Accordingly, the CA Decision dated August 12, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03405 is hereby MODIFIED in
that NESTOR GATCHALIAN is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in the offense of
Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. 
 PRINCIPLES:
Revised Penal Code Article 248 . Murder. – any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

G.R. No. 199892               December 10, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ARTURO PUNZALAN, JR., Accused-Appellant.
 PONENTE:
            Leonardo-De Castro, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Arturo Punzalan, Jr.
Victim: Antonio Duclayna, Arnulfo Andal, Evelio Bacosa, Danilo Cuya, Erlinger Bundang and Cesar
Domingo, all members of the Philippine Navy
 
 That on or about the 10th day of August 2002, at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in Brgy.
West Dirita, Municipality of San Antonio, Province of Zambales, Philippines, while driving and in
control of a Nissan Van with plate no. DRW 706, bump, overrun, smash and hit from behind with
the use of the said van, the following persons: Antonio Duclayna, Arnulfo Andal, Evelio Bacosa,
Danilo Cuya, Erlinger Bundang and Cesar Domingo
 All members of the Philippine Navy then assigned at the Naval Education and Training Command
in San Antonio, Zambales, directly caused the death of Arnulfo Andal and Antonio Duclayna.

RTC Decision
Punzalan was charged with complex crime of Double Murder qualified by treachery with
Attempted Murder attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle.
CA Decision
                        Affirmed with modifications in toto by Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
            Whether or not the crime is qualified as murder.
HELD:
Yes. Treachery is clearly present in the crime. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. 
 Punzalans act of running over the victims with his van from behind
while the victims were walking inside the NETC camp was a clear act of treachery. The victims
were surprised and were not able to prepare and repel the treacherous assault of
Punzalan.

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff Accused

Witnesses, also the victims of the case testified that accused was the one that Appellant
killed their two (2) companions and inflicted injuries on the others by using his maintained his
van to run over them. innocence.

 
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
IN VIEW THEREOF, accused ARTURO PUNZALAN, JR. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the complex crime of Double Murder qualified by treachery with Attempted Murder attended by the
aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua.