Case Digest

People V Rodas

FACTS
- Titing Asenda wanted to help his brother Danilo Asenda to harvest corn.
- At around 8PM in the evening of August 9, 1996, a benefit dance was being held sponsored
by Boboy Raquilme.
- In the event, Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot was around the area and they stooped by
the dance hall and started to watch the affair while Titing Asenda was near them.
- Then, they saw Charlito, Armando, Jose Jr, and Sr Rodas srated circling Titing Asenda and
he was satbbed out of where with a hunting knife by Charlito and they continued inflicting
harm to Titing until he fell to the ground.
- Asonda and Anggot saw what happened and tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas
prevented them by pointing a gun at them and firing it towards the sky.
- Right after the assailants left, Asonda and Anggot approached Titing who was already
dead and they immediately informed his brother Danilo about what happened.
Unfortunately, police arrived the day after the crime happened.
- The assailants withdrew their previous pleas of “NOT GUILTY” and entered their
respective pleas of “GUILTY” for the lesser crime of Homicide but the RTC found accused-
appellants Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr. guilty of the crime of Murder.

ISSUES
1) WON aggravating circumstance of nocturnity can be considered
2) WON aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength can be considered

HELD
1) NO. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the
commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the
accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is
the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
 Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a
modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer
insure the offender's immunity from identification or capture.
2) YES. As regards the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what
should be considered is not that there were three, four, or more assailants as against
one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. While it is true that superiority in number does not
per se mean superiority in strength, the appellants in this case did not only enjoy
superiority in number, but were armed with a weapon, while the victim had no means
with which to defend himself.