15. PEOPLE v.

BRAÑA
G.R. no. L-29210
October 31, 1969

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines

Defendant-Appellant: Freddie Braña
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L., J.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR

STRENGTH. — Where when the accused attacked the unarmed 4 feet, 11-
inch girl with a knife, the former had abused that superiority which his sex
and weapon employed afforded him, and from which the deceased would be
unable to defend herself, the crime committed was murder in view of the
existence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Facts:
● This is a case of automatic review for sentencing the defendant appellant of death
penalty for slaying one Corazon Tabaño.
● The deceased was found by her mother in their house bleeding from several stab
wounds. She expired in a few minutes.
● In the autopsy report, she sustained five stab wounds, namely 1) in the thorax 2)
abdomen 3) middle abdomen d) left forearm e) lateral elbow.
● The cause of death of the victim was shock due to hemorrhage from stab wounds.
● The defendant was charged with murder qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength and attended by aggravating circumstances if disregard to sex and
dwelling.
● The mother of the deceased testified that at the time of the murder, she heard a cry from
her daughter shouting for help. She saw the defendant stabbing her daughter with a
knife. She also heard the accused say “So you don’t want me? I better kill you.” The
deceased managed to escape to another room with the mother and the defendant
threatened them with the words "If I could only enter the room I will kill all of you".
● The prosecution witnesses presented were the mother of the deceased, Rafaela
Fortaleza (first cousin of the deceased), Felipe Lorica of the police force, and Andres
Suarez
● The accused was a former boarder of the aunt of the deceased so the family of the
deceased knew him to be a suitor of the deceased but the latter rejected him.
● The defense witnesses claimed otherwise. They argued that the defendant and the
deceased were sweethearts since 1962 to 1967.
● The defendant claimed the same that they were lovers. On the day of the murder, he
was not really on his way to the house of the deceased rather it only happened that the
bus that he rode on passed the street were the deceased was living. He was going to
meet Atty. Defensor.
 ● He went into the room of the deceased and held her. In this instance, the deceased
pushed him back and as she returned she held a knife, told him not to court anyone and
accused him of courting her first cousin. The deceased stabbed him with a knife.
● The accused surrendered on March 31, 1967. The defense claims that there was no
evident premeditation of the murder.
Issue:
Whether or not there is an evident premeditation on the part of the accused.

Ruling:
No. It must be proved that the accused not only had decided to commit the crime but also that
the decision was the result of meditation, calculation, and reflection. And these elements: (1) the
time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) the act manifestly indicating
persistence or determination to commit it; and (3) sufficient lapse of time to enable meditation
and reflection between the moment when the offender determined to commit it and the actual
execution of the crime, have to be established by evidence as clear as the proof of the crime
itself. The claim of the witness of the evident premeditation was uncorroborated. Thus, making it
a weak claim.

The crime committed by herein accused is murder, punishable by reclusión temporal in

its maximum period to death. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling of f set by
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty should be that
in its medium period, life imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby modified; the accused is
sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P12,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizo

PEOPLE v. MANGANGAN (TREACHERY)

- 1 am, sleeping in the house, noise from outside (where carabao is located),
suspected that someone will steal, went out on the porch, five feet above the
ground, urinated, shot 5 times, died
- Wife heard husband urinating, heard the shots, went out to investigate, saw her
husband, beamed her flashlight, saw the offender armed with a carbine, four
meters away, shot her 3 times, took refuge inside the house
- Offender and four companions ran away
- Brgy captain came and so the dead body, wife revealed to him that the offender
killed her husband, reported the killing
- Motive: offender suspected that the victim reported to the brgy captain that he
stole a fishing net, offender resented the victim
 - 12 days prior to the killing, the offender tried to assault the victim but the people
around interfered, offender uttered that the victim is a “traidor”
- The victim had been apprehensive that the offender would harm him and told his
wife about it
- Offender claimed that he had been living on a different brgy and was there at the
time of the commission of the crime, this was not believed by the court, sided with
the testimonies of two public officials who went to the house of the offender in the
same brgy and found his son there who told them that his father was not around
- The distance between the brgy where he claims to live is also alkable in one and a
half hours
- Testimony of the wife that offender immediately shot the victim was enough;
never wavered in her identification of the offender despite being grilled; even
described her hat; she had known him for a very long time; no explanation why
she would falsely impute crime against the offender
- Qualified by treachery; shot at night while urinating; did not expect at all that
enemy was only four meter away, aiming a carbine at him; insured the execution
of the crime without any risk to himself; victim was unarmed and absolutely
defenseless

Ruling:
- Murder
- There is treachery
- No generic aggravating (evident premiditation, not proven) or mitigating
circumstance

PEOPLE V. CLAMOR (TREACHERY)

- Victim was walking along with a companion
- Riding in tandem shoot victim several times as they passed; fled and later on
came back to shoot the victim again
- Witnesses saw that the accused shot the victim
- The accused made an ante mortem (before he died) statement that it was the
accused who shot him
Ruling:
- Treachery was correctly found; armed with a gun; riding in tandem; suddenly and
without warning shot the unsuspecting and unarmed victim; returned to shoot
again; no opportunity to defend himself
- No evident premiditation