BAR LECTURE SERIES

2023
HernanDOit
Judge MA. ROWENA V. ALEJANDRIA

People vs. Melvin Perreira

G.R. No. 220749, January 20, 2021, J. Hernando

Perreira completely denied the narrative of the prosecution. He claimed that

Bagan was the aggressor who attacked him while he was walking down the
street. The attack purportedly came hours after a confrontation between Perreira
and the Spouses Bagan earlier in the day. Thus, Perreira was forced to defend
himself which caused him to stab the victim.

Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by

independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
Indeed, in involving self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the
accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of the prosecution. (Reverse Trial)

In the service of his sentence, accused is x x x credited with four-fifths (4/5) of

the preventive imprisonment undergone by him, there being no showing that he
agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners.

Perreira is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

The requisites for voluntary surrender that:

(1) the offender has not been actually arrested;

(2) (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's
agent; and
(3) (3) the surrender was voluntary, were not met.

The facts established herein parlay that the barangay authorities had to search
for Perreira and go to the place where he fled to. Only then was he arrested.
People vs. Moreno
G.R. No. 191759, March 02, 2020
Treachery

Adelriza Mijares was awakened from her sleep when a hard object hit her head.
When she turned on the lights, a man, repeatedly stabbed her husband, Cecil
Mijares ("Mijares"), on the leg and chest. Mijares was able to kick the man out of
the room and even close the door. Immediately thereafter, Mijares collapsed and
fell on the floor. Adelriza shouted for help and their neighbor, came to their
rescue. Virgie sought assistance from their neighbors, in bringing Mijares to the
Philippine General Hospital (PGH). Unfortunately, Mijares died while undergoing
treatment.

Treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim was able to retaliate
as a result of his reflexes, so long as he did not have the opportunity to
repel the initial assault, viz.:

Although appellant contends that there were defensive wounds on his arms,
these do not show that the victim was able to put up an effective defense. This
Court finds these wounds to be merely the result of a reflex action on the victim's
part, in a vain attempt to avoid the thrusts of the knife.

EDWIN TALABIS VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 214647, March 04, 2020, J. Hernando

The issues of the case are as follows:

(1) Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction even though it was based on a
complaint filed by Leonora and Rhoda, who are private individuals, and not by a
DENR forest officer; and

(2) Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of old age and
of voluntary surrender.
Petitioner insists that only the investigating forest officers have the exclusive
authority to file the complaint for violation of any of the provisions of PD No. 705
and non-compliance therewith ousts the court of its jurisdiction.
RULING:

A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not be

filed by the offended party. "The rule has been that, unless the offense subject
thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio or is private in nature], the
same may be filed, for preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent
person." Proceeding from the foregoing discussion, the complaint thus filed by
Leonora and Rhoda with the Provincial Prosecutor was valid.

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) (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's
agent; and
(3) (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.

This Court, however, is aware that herein petitioner is 83 years old as of date as
evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth64 issued by the Municipal Civil
Registrar of Buguias, Benguet. While petitioner could have likewise alleged his
advanced age before the RTC, this Court, for equitable and humanitarian
considerations, cannot simply ignore and disregard the same for the sole purpose
of determining the proper penalty to be meted out against him.

PEOPLE VS. EDDIE MANANSALA

G.R. No. 233104. September 02, 2020, J. Hernando

Manansala was charged with Murder qualified by evident premeditation and

treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning,
done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In order for treachery to be
properly appreciated, two elements must be present:
 (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself;
and
(2) (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods, or forms of attack employed by him.

Manansala stealthily entered the house of the victim and shot him while he was
going upstairs. The fatal wound was inflicted from behind since the entry point
was located at the back lumbar region while the exit point was at the front
portion of the victim's body with the trajectory traversing upwards.

These clearly indicate that the victim was going upstairs with his back towards
the assailant when he was shot. We are thus in agreement with the OSG that
treachery attended the killing as the victim's position rendered him defenseless
from the sudden attack from behind.

ON CCTV as evidence

This Court agrees with the RTC in appreciating the CCTV footages and admitting
the same as evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the witnesses
and supported the finding of treachery in the case at bar.

As correctly held by the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that
persons authorized to authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited
solely to the person who made the recording but also by another competent
witness who can testify to its accuracy.

In the case at bar, Asas was able to establish the origin of the recording and
explain how it was transferred to the compact disc and subsequently presented
to the trial court.

Evident Premeditation

However, this Court finds that the prosecution was not able to satisfactorily
establish the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Per
jurisprudence, "[t]he elements of evident premeditation are:

(1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime;

 (2) (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his
determination; and
(3) (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual
execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of
his acts.

the only basis for the RTC and the appellate court in finding evident
premeditation as attendant to the crime was the confrontation between the
victim and Manansala one day before the killing. The trial court merely surmised
that Manansala must have harbored feelings of resentment towards the victim
and has clung to that thought and killed the victim.

When it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or
what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation
cannot be considered. “Evident premeditation must be based on external acts
and must be evident, not merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning.”

Nevertheless, despite the absence of evident premeditation, the killing remains

to be murder in view of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. (Effect of
qualifying aggravating)

People vs. Natindim, et. al

G.R. No. 201867, November 04, 2020
Appreciation of Aggravating circumstances

Appellants argue that they should not have been convicted of murder considering
that no circumstances have been specifically alleged in the Information which
would qualify the killing into murder. They cited People v. Alba where it was
ruled that the circumstance must be alleged with specificity as a qualifying
circumstance; otherwise, it can only be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance.

Notably, the Information alleged that with treachery, the appellants shot Pepito
on the head with the use of a firearm and thereafter hacked him even though he
was dying and helpless on the ground.

Since treachery qualified the crime to murder, the generic aggravating

circumstances of abuse of superior strength, in aid of armed men and nighttime
are absorbed by and necessarily included in the former. Unless the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime was purposely sought and founded on different
factual bases, then nighttime can be considered as a separate generic
aggravating circumstance, which is however not present in the case at bar.

Evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in

this case for failure of the prosecution to specifically allege in the Information
the acts constituting it.

Mere reference to evident premeditation is not sufficient because it is in the

nature of a conclusion of law, not factual averments. Section 9, Rule 110 of the
Rules of Court requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense must be stated in "ordinary and concise language without repetition,
not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense." This is to
sufficiently apprise the accused of what he or she allegedly committed. Thus, the
Information must state the facts and circumstances alleging the elements of a
crime to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him/her so
as to enable him/her to suitably prepare his/her defense.

In this case, however, the prosecution failed to specifically allege in the

Information the acts constituting evident premeditation. Nevertheless, it can still
be considered a generic aggravating circumstance, as in this case.

Criminal Case No. 97-1258 (Murder):

That at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of July 29, 1997 at Sitio Sta. Cruz,
Dansolihon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with evident premeditation, with
treachery, by taking advantage of superior strength and under cover of night,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot, with the use of a firearm,
one Pepito Angga Gunayan, hitting the latter on the head, and as Pepito Angga
Gunayan fell dying, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hack and stab, with the use of bladed weapons, their victim inflicting
upon the aforementioned Pepito A. Gunayan mortal wounds that eventually
caused his death, to the great damage and prejudice of the wife and children of
the deceased.

The generic aggravating circumstances of cruelty, dwelling and intoxication

cannot be considered in this case.
In People v. Legaspi, the Court held that for both qualifying and aggravating
circumstances to be considered in the case, they must be specifically alleged in
the Information or Complaint, as provided in the amended Sections 8 and 9,
Rule 110, of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, they will not be appreciated even if
duly proved during the trial. Given that the Judgment of the court a quo was
promulgated on November 23, 2000 wherein the ruling in Legaspi has not yet
been issued, this Court gives this doctrinal rule a retroactive effect being
favorable to the appellants.

Hence, only the qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbs abuse of

superior strength, in aid of armed men and nighttime, as well as the generic
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, can be considered in the
present case.

On the Mitigating Circumstances

The RTC and the CA correctly disregarded the voluntary surrender claimed by
appellants Edimar and Carlito as a mitigating circumstance since their
surrender was not for the two crimes charged in this case but for the other cases
of Robbery committed in Talakag. The surrender, to be deemed voluntary, must
be spontaneous in which the accused voluntarily submits himself or herself to
the authorities with an acknowledgment of his or her guilt and with the intent
to save them from trouble and expense of effecting his/her capture. Moreover,
the voluntary surrender must be by reason of the crime for which the accused is
to be prosecuted which is not the case here.

Nonetheless, even if we consider their voluntary surrender as a mitigating

circumstance in addition to their voluntary confession of guilt, one mitigating
circumstance may offset the generic aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation as to leave appellant Edimar with only one mitigating
circumstance which is voluntary confession of guilt. Appellant Carlito is left with
no other attending circumstance. This, however, will still not reduce by one
degree the penalty imposed by the RPC for murder, that is, reclusion perpetua
to death. Regardless of the number of ordinary mitigating circumstances and
despite the absence of an aggravating circumstance, the penalty cannot be
reduced to any degree.

The reduction applies only when the sentence imposed by law is a divisible
penalty which is either a single divisible penalty or three different penalties which
are divisible into three periods which is not the case herein. Hence, the
contention of the appellants that the penalty for Edimar and Carlito

GIL MIGUEL VS.DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

UDK-15368. September 15, 2021, J. Hernando

Alleging that his continued detention no longer holds legal basis in view of
R.A.10592, otherwise known as the "Good Conduct Time Allowance Law"
(GCTA Law), Miguel, convicted of Murder, filed this petition for the issuance of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Miguel's argument is two-fold:

1. he anchors his claim on the assertion that applying the GCTA Law, he has
served a total of "thirty-eight (38) years, ten (10) months, and one (1) day"
already.
2. he posits that Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) caps the duration of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years. Having served a total of
thirtyeight (38) years, which is eight (8) years more than the supposed maximum
duration of reclusion perpetua, Miguel concludes that he has fully served his
sentence and his detention no longer holds legal basis.

The last paragraph of Section 1 of the GCTA Law reads:

Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and

persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this
Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is
destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.

Is murder considered a heinous crime for purposes of the application of

the GCTA Law?

The 2019 Revised IRR defines "heinous crimes" as follows:

"Heinous Crimes" - crimes which are grievous, odious and hateful to the senses
and which, by reason of their inherent and or manifest wickedness, viciousness,
atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards
and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society,
including crimes which are mandatorily punishable by Death under the
provisions of RA No. 7659, as amended, otherwise known as the Death Penalty
Law, and those crimes specifically declared as such by the Supreme Court.
In sum, Murder is considered a heinous crime in so far as the GCTA Law is
concerned, and persons charged with and/or convicted of such are disqualified
from availing of the benefits of the law.

On this point alone, the petition should already fail. However, Miguel further
argues that Article 70 of the RPC caps the duration of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua at thirty (30) years only.

The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is
only to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or
for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties x x

Guided by the foregoing jurisprudence, it is evident that the penalty of reclusion

perpetua requires imprisonment of at least thirty (30) years, after which the
convict becomes only eligible for pardon, and not for release. This is in contrast
to Miguel's claim that a convict meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua
must serve only thirty (30) years.

PEOPLE vs. RENATO GALUGA y WAD-AS

February 13, 2019, G.R. No. 221428, HERNANDO, J.

Accused pleads for the withdrawal of his appeal, asserting that he is eligible for
parole and/or probation.

Accused as he is sentenced herein to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,

cannot apply for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 explicitly states that
“persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not
be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended."

Accused-appellant is likewise disqualified from applying for probation as Section

9(a) of the Probation Law is clear that the benefits of probation shall not extend
to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
(6) years.

The sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant in this case

exceeds six (6) years of imprisonment.

Furthermore, Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, reads:

SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. - Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the
trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for
a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the
period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it may deem best. No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment or conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty,
the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified
decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation
based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was
rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been raffled. In a
case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal,
the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written
application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of
conviction

TEDDY GRANA AND TEOFILO GRANA VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 202111, November 25, 2019, J. Hernando

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951, August 29, 2017

AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND
DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED
UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT
NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE", AS
AMENDED

Considering that all the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief are present
in this case, petitioners were properly adjudged guilty thereof.

With regard to the penalty imposed by the MeTC, as affirmed by the RTC and
further affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there is a need to modify the same in
view of the adjustments stated in Republic Act No. 10951. Under Section 88
thereof, the penalty imposed on persons found liable for Malicious Mischief
under Article 327 and penalized under Article 329 is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 88. Article 329 of the same Act, as amended by Commonwealth Act No.
3999, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Art. 329. Other mischiefs. - The mischiefs not included in the next preceding
article shall be punished:

"1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the
damage used exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000);

"2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over
Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000); and

"3. By arresto menor or a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused
and not more than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000), if the amount involved does
not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or cannot be estimated."

We note that Gil and Olive did not appeal their case before the Court of Appeals.
Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]n appeal taken by
one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the
latter."

In this case, considering the reduction of the sentence imposed on the crime
committed, which is favorable and applicable to Gil and Olive, then they should
benefit from the reduction of the sentence imposed on them.