PEOPLE VS PADILLA – SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

FACTS:
 The case is about the murder of Pfc. Edino Ontuca, officer in charge of Talalora Police Sub-Station. The
accused was Sgt. Felix Padilla, a member of the Philippine Air Force.
There were two versions of the case.
Version of the Prosecution:
 Omega was on duty at a Pier in Samar
 Past midnight, (Private First Class) Edino Ontuca approached (Patrol Man) Daniel Omega to ask for assistance
claiming he was maltreated by strangers.
 Pfc. Ontuca and Pat. Omega went to where he was reportedly assaulted.
 Omega investigated the complaint and there he came to know the group of Padilla, Belino and de la Cruz
 After a short exclamation by Ontuca, he and Omega left
 While Ontuca was left at the entrance of a hotel and Omega was a bit far, a commotion occurred
 Omega rushed to find his companion down on his knee and ganged up by the group of Padilla
 They wanted to bring Ontuca and Omega to the hospital to undergo liquor test
 While on their way, Ontuca was able to run away from the accused, and the group pursued him.
 A while later, Ontuca later grabbed a girl to be his human shield but she was able to escape
 Without any protection, he squatted and held a piece of plywood to cover his head
 Omega and de la Cruz, saw Ontuca and Padilla facing each other, where Ontuca begged for his life
o Padilla showed no mercy and shot him in the head.
 Military police arrived, ordered to surrender Padilla’s and de la Cruz firearms to their Commanding Officer
 And the victim was brought to the hospital where he died the following day.
According to the defense:
 Sgt. Padilla on the night of the crime just came from an operation and was on his way to his cousin’s house
when he saw a man forcing himself to a woman.
 He ordered the man to release the woman but he ignored it.
 He made a warning shot in the air and even before he could even lower his arm he heard a gun report
emanating 30 meters away.
 At that moment, the man holding the woman slumped to the ground.

 The Court of First Instance of Samar convicted Sgt. Padilla with the Crime of murder qualified by treachery
with generic aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of his public position but appreciating the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
 Court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Pfc. Ontuca in the
sum of 30k and to pay the cost.
 Sgt. Padilla appealed decision of the court before the Supreme Court contending that the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not sufficient provocation can be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in the case at bar
HELD:
 According to the court, sufficient provocation could not mitigate the criminal liability of the accused. He
cannot claim that he was provoked by Ontuca when he ran away from him because he feared for his life
having been beaten up that same evening.
 To flee from danger is not a source of provocation. And the fact is if an offended party flees from his aggressor
then the aggressor has no reason to pursue and attack him.
 Treachery was not present, as accused did not adopt a method or manner in killing the victim that would
eliminate any risk to himself.
 However the killing was qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, proved by the
pistol used in killing the victim who only had a piece of plywood to defend himself.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION – 1. Sufficient, 2. Immediate to the commission of crime 3. Must originate from offended
party
PEOPLE VS DIOKNO – IMMEDIATE VINDICATION
FACTS:
 Yu Hiong was a vendor of different goods in Lucena
 Salome Diokno was engaged for about a year with Yu Hiong and she invited him to go with her.
o But Yu Hiong said her father was angry at him.
 She said she will take responsibility, and later that day both of them left for San Pablo
 Epifanio Diokno, the father of Salome was informed by his son Roman that his sister eloped with Yu Hiong
 Upon knowing the location of the two, Epifanio and Roman went there and saw Yu Hiong who hurriedly went
back upstairs of the house which they were staying.
 Epifanio and Roman caught Yu Hiong and he begged for mercy but he was stabbed by Roman with balisong.
Epifanio also stabbed him, and he fell. He was stabbed again repeteadly.
 The police was alerted to the incident and was able to catch Epifanio in the crime scene
o He admitted that he stabbed the victim
 The Chinese answered the questions thrown to him before he was brought to the hospital
 While in a serious condition, he also made a statement in the hospital telling how he was attacked
 He later on died because of the wounds he suffered.
 Roman was located after 3 days
 The Court of First Instance of Manila found the two accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, qualified by superior strength and evident premeditation, sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua.
 The accused filed a notice of appeal on the decision of the lower court
o Alleging that the court erred in sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the accused can be granted the privilege of the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication
 based on paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code(immediate vindication, passion or
obfuscation, voluntary surrender)
 Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation to
qualify the crime to murder
RULING:
 YES. Immediate vindication of a grave offense to the accused may be taken into consideration for the two
because even if the aggression took place days after the elopement, the offense did not cease because
Salome’s whereabouts were unknown and her marriage to the victim was not legalized.
 The elopement also constituted a grave offense to the honor of Epifanio and a disturbance in the peace of the
home according to the customs belonging to the accused. 
 YES. Impulse producing passion or obfuscation may also be considered because the fact that the victim run
upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely
offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which led them
to commit the crime.
 Yes because Epifanio Diokno surrendered immediately to the authorities.
 Abuse of superior strength not established
 Evident premeditation not established
 NO qualifying circumstance, crime is HOMICIDE only.
FALLO:
 3 mitigating circumstances for Epifanio Diokno and 2 mitigating circumstances for Roman Diokno
 The SUPREME COURT found them guilty of the CRIME OF HOMICIDE sentencing them to indeterminate
penalty from 2 years and one day of prision coreccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, crediting
them with one-half of the time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment.

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION –ACT OR EVENT WHICH OFFENDS THE ACCUSED CAUSING MENTAL AGONY TO HIM AND
MOVES HIM TO VINDICATE HIMSELF OF SUCH OFFENSE
PEOPLE VS RABANILLO – PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
FACTS:
 The case is about the murder of Raul Morales and the accused herein is Vicente Rabanillo
 One afternoon, Rabanillo, Morales and several others were having a drinking spree.
 Later on, participants in the drinking session began splashing each other with water.
 Rabanillo, did the same thing to Morales which triggered a fistfight between them.
 The two were pacified by the others and were brought to their homes.
 After this event, there are 2 different versions.
 The version of the prosecution reveals that half an hour after the fistfight, while Morales was having a
conversation in the terrace of his house, Rabanillo went out of his house wielding a samurai went straight to
Morales and hacked him once but was parried. He hacked him two more times which resulted to his death
 However according to the defense, a while after the fight, it was Morales who shouted and challenged
Rabanillo to come out. He accepted the challenge went outside with a bolo, attacked Morales and killed him.
 Accompanied by the barangay captain, he surrendered afterwards.
 The Regional Trial Court of Dagupan found Rabanillo guilty of the crime of murder attended by the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation and generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior
strength sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to DEATH.
 Hence Rabanillo appealed the decision:
o Contending that the trial court erred in not finding that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of
passion and obfuscation, intoxication and voluntary surrender.
o The trial court erred in finding that the killing was qualified by evident premeditation

ISSUES:
 Whether or not accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation
 Whether or not accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication and voluntary surrender
 Whether or not trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength

RULING:
 No. For passion and obfuscation to be mitigating, it must originate from lawful feelings.
 The turmoil that results from a quarrel is different from the excitement in the mind of a person, offended to
such a degree as to deprive him of his self-control.
 The feelings inherent in persons who quarrel do not constitute obfuscation.
 Also in this case, 30 minutes have passed between the fistfight and the killing of Morales. The attack is not a
result of a sudden impulse of an uncontrollable fury.
 Rabanillo was driven by revenge or anger for being publicly berated, which is why the passion and
obfuscation cannot be appreciated.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the appealed decision with MODIFICATIONS. Rabanillo is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of prision mayor
to reclusion temporal.
 No. To be mitigating, state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient evidence. To the point
that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower. The fact that he was able to resume his routine
work belies his claim that he was heavily drunk at the time he attacked the victim
 No. For voluntary surrender to be considered, it must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities because he acknowledges his guilt or (b) he wishes to save
them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. In the present case, the barangay
captain had to go to the house of Rabanillo to take the latter to the police station. The latter did not present
himself voluntarily.
 No. For evident premeditation to be considered, the following elements must be established: (1)
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender
has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime
and the execution thereof to allow the offender time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In the present
 case, the lapse of 30 minutes between the determination to commit a crime and the execution thereof is
insufficient for full meditation on the consequences of the act.
 No. There is abuse of superior strength if, as expressly provided by law, the assailant takes advantage of his
superior strength. It may further be stressed that a man of slimmer/thinner body need not
necessarily be physically weak. Moreover, even granting that Rabanillo was physically stronger than Morales,
the circumstances did not show that he took advantage of his superior strength.
 The court is erroneous in imposing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to DEATH. What should be imposed is one
or the other depending on the modifying circumstances.

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION – 1. There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of
mind and 2. The act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time
PEOPLE VS AMAGUIN – VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
FACTS:
 The case is about the death of the 2 Oro brothers. The accused being Willie, Gildo, and Celso all surnamed
Amaguin and charged with murder. Celso remains at large while the 2 underwent trial.
 According to prosecution, Pacifico, Diosdado, 2 brothers and relatives were on their way to the plaza in Iloilo
City from a gathering when Pacifico was called by accused Celso
 He refused, then Celso rushed towards him with a knife in hand
 Gildo, Celso's younger brother, with a knife and slingshot, aimed a dart at Pacifico’s brother(Danilo)
 Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo stabbed Diosdado with a knife.
 Then Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively shot the
brothers Pacifico, Diosdado and their other fleeing brother
 Diosdado pleaded for his life while kneeling, but was shot again by Willie who next fired anew at Pacifico.
 Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed Pacifico who already lying and defenseless.
 Other survivors also testified according to their versions.
 The defense however maintains that it was the Oro brothers who started the fight.
 According to Gildo Amaguin, Pacifico with five others went to their house
 They approached his brother Celso and a fight was initiated. (Celso was kicked by one of Pacifico’s companion)
 Then the guest of Gildo fired at Pacifico and 2 other persons, and escaped with Celso.
o After his safe-keeping, Gildo was turned over to the local police by his uncle.
 According to Willie Amaguin, he was drinking with friends and heard some explosions.
o But when he arrived the incident has already ended, and he looked for his brothers.
o He turned himself in days after because he learned that law enforcers were looking for him.
 Several others also testified.
 After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo gave credit to the version of the prosecution and found
Gildo Amaguin, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, and to suffer reclusion
perpetua on both cases and Willie Amaguin as an accomplice, and an indeterminate penalty of 17yrs and 4mos
and 1 day to 20 yrs in both cases.
 Hence the appeal by the two, to the decision of the court.
o Raising several issues including the court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender in their favor
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of the
accused?

RULING:
 Yes. While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact remains that
they voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities before arrest could be effected.
 For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be
present: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered to a person in authority;
and (c) the surrender must be voluntary.
 All these requisites appear to have attended their surrender.
 TREACHERY NOT ESTABLISHED, THE ATTACKERS ARE NOT ENTIRELY RISK FREE, 6 PEOPLE and it is possible they
put their lives in danger because they could have been armed
 WILLIE LIABLE ONLY FOR HIS ACTS. CONSPIRACY AMONG THE 2 BROTHERS NOT INCLUDING WILLIE.
 WILLIE- HOMICIDE and FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE WITH ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH.
 The SUPREME COURT MODIFIED the decision of the lower court. WILLIE guilty of Homicide and frustrated
homicide, GILDO guilty of HOMICIDE on separate cases.

 WILLIE – prision mayor to reclusion temporal and prision coreccional to prision mayor
 GILDO – prision mayor to reclusion temporal
PEOPLE VS MENDOZA – IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILT
FACTS:
 Sometime in 1987, the storeroom of Bukidnon National School of Home Industries (BNSHI) was ransacked.
 After an on-the-spot investigation, the police found themselves at a loss as to the identity of the culprit or
culprits. The value of the missing articles was around P15,000.
 The robbery with force upon things was laid on Magalop, Fernandez and Dahilan.
 Assisted by counsel, Magalop pleaded guilty while Fernandez pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Dahilan’s
arraignment was deferred as he was “not mentally well.”
 Instead of pronouncing judgment on Magalop the court conducted a trial.
 The evidence of the prosecution was only the pictures of the ransacked room and some of the stolen things
which were found in the possession of Babie Tan. (2 pliers and a saw)
 Babie Tan claimed these stolen things were sold to him but refused to testify.
 The prosecution failed to prove that the three accused were responsible of stealing.
 Although Magalop pleaded guilty, it was not shown how they conspired and helped each other.
 It was not established how Magalop and Fernandez participated in the looting. No evidence also was shown
that he sold the tools to Babie Tan.
 The Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon ACQUITTED the two accused. With respect to Dahilan, the case was held
in abeyance until he is mentally well.
 Provincial Prosecutor’s office filed a motion for reconsideration, but was DENIED.
 Hence the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus (filed by Provincial Prosecutor)(a writ to order a person to
perform a statutory duty)
o Assailing the judgment of Judge Mendoza in acquitting Magalop despite his plea of guilt.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Judge Mendoza curtailed the power of the state to punish criminals by acquitting Magalop
after pleading guilty?

HELD:
 No. The essence of the plea of guilt is that the accused admits his guilt freely, voluntarily and with full
knowledge of the crime charged in the information as well as the consequences of his plea.
 When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive evidence from the parties to
determine the penalty to be imposed.
 It will be an abuse of discretion on the part of the judge to hold the accused to his admission of guilt and to
sentence him even if the evidence points to acquittal.
 There is no rule which states that simply because the accused pleaded guilty, his conviction should follow.
 Evidence independent of the plea may be considered to convince the judge that the plea was intelligently
made.
 In this case, prosecution was not able to summon Babie Tan in the witness stand. He could have positively
identified the person who sold the things to him.
 Outside of Magalop’s improvident plea of guilt, there is absolutely no evidence against him and he must be
acquitted.
 THE SUPREME COURT dismissed the petition for lack of merit and SUSTAINED the ACQUITTAL of the accused.

 The petitioner submits that Magalop assisted by counsel, voluntarily, spontaneously and intelligently pleaded
guilty to the crime of robbery with force upon things and that the trial court had no alternative but to
pronounce judgment and impose the proper penalty.
 However, no evidence was established independent of his plea which would link him to the robbery. The plea of
guilt was not intelligently done.

VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT – 1. In open court, 2. Spontaneously and unconditionally, 3. Prior to presentation of
evidence of the prosecution
PEOPLE VS GANO (MICKEY MOUSE) – VOLUNTARY CONFESSION (PLEA BARGAINING)
FACTS:
 Alberto Marbella left his wife and daughter with his parents-in-law in San Mateo, Rizal for a trip to Albay
 3 days later, he learned that his parents in law and his wife were brutally murdered
 When he came back, he learned from the police that Castanito Gano, a former employee of his parents in law
was the culprit.
 He also discovered that cash and valuables were missing, and that his daughter Angelica, witnessed the
massacre and the taking of their valuables.
 Senior Inspector Garcia received a report of the massacre, and rushed to the airport for a possible arrest,
upon knowing the identity of the accused, who uses different aliases.
 Gano was arrested by the local police in Butuan City, and informed Garcia and his companions where Gano
was being detained
o The police officer who arrested him also found in his possession several items and some cash
 On arraignment Gano made a qualified admission of killing the 3 victims but denied the robbery.
 Considering what is charged is a complex crime, he pleaded not guilty.
 The prosecution had several witnesses including (Angelica, Senior Inspector Garcia, the live-in partner of Gano,
the relative of the victims, arresting police officer) ANGELICA-knew him as ALLAN and positively identified
mickey mouse watch which was in the possession of the accused
 Gano testified for himself, admitting the killings but denying the robbery, stating that the cash found with him
was his winnings in jueteng
 The Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal convicted him of robbery with homicide, appreciating the
mitigating circumstance of “admitting the crime” and 2 aggravating circumstances based on the number of
victims killed and sentenced him to suffer the PENALTY of DEATH. (TRIAL COURT GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO
TESTIMONY OF ANGELICA)
 Hence the automatic review.

ISSUE
 Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance and the
2 other killings as an aggravating circumstance

RULING
 YES. For voluntary confession to be appreciated, it must be not only be made unconditionally but the accused
must also admit to the offense charged.
 In the case at bar, the accused admitted to the crime of homicide but not to robbery with homicide which is a
considerably graver offense.
 Hence, if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualifying, it is not mitigating.

 As regard the aggravating circumstance, it should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional
rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance.
 Hence the two other killings should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstance, as the principle was laid
down in People v. Regala.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC with MODIFICATIONS, and lowered the penalty to
reclusion perpetua.
DWELLING NOT APPRECIATED AS IT WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, which is REQUIRED in the REVISED RULES
ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PEOPLE VS PERAN
FACTS:
 One morning, Roberto Cawasan, Jose Camoc (deceased), and Bernardo Peran had an altercation regarding the
ownership of a puppy wherein Peran ended up mad.
 When Peran left, the two agreed to go to the house of Jose’s cousin, but Roberto went ahead of him because
Jose still has to feed the chickens
 When Roberto looked back, he saw Peran, Narido and Piquero took Jose towards the creek
 He followed them and there, he saw Peran hold of a piece of wood and hit the victim on the forehead.
 Narido gave the second blow hitting him again in the forehead with a stone.
 Then Piquero gave the victim the last blow on his mouth using his fist
o Roberto ran away and kept silent for fear of his life
 The cousin of Jose found out that he was missing and formed a search team.
 After more than a month they found his cadaver near the Calabasa Waterfalls.
 Roberto broke his silence and narrated the story to the Barangay Captain, and pointed the three accused as
the perpetrators.
 On arraignment, all three accused entered a plea of not guilty.
 At the trial, Bernardo presented his version, that he and the victim were out on Calabasa Falls for the purpose
of catching frogs, the latter fell from the top of the falls, hit his head and died instantly. He never told anybody
because he was afraid he would be blamed for Jose’s death.
 The Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro gave credence to the version of the prosecution and convicted the
three accused of murder qualified by conspiracy, treachery and superior strength and to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment.
 Hence the appeal from the decision.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in applying conspiracy, treachery, and superior strength to qualify the
crime to murder.
 Whether or not abuse of superior strength can qualify the crime to murder, despite not being sufficiently
alleged in the information

HELD:
 YES. Although there was conspiracy in the case at bar, as evident from the concert of action and unity of
purpose, it could not elevate the motive of the crime to a more serious offense.
 Conspiracy is neither aggravating nor qualifying but rather a manner in incurring collective criminal liability
among every co-conspirator in an equal degree where the act of one becomes the act of all.
 The presence of conspiracy cannot qualify a killing to murder.
 The trial court erred in holding that the killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery has neither been alleged no
has it been proven by the evidence. Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. In order for alevosia or treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, it must be shown that the treacherous acts were present and preceded the commencement of
the act which caused the injury complained of.
 The trial court correctly appreciated the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. This was evident from the
injury sustained by the victim. The accused-appellant could not have broken the victim’s skull had it not exerted
excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense available to the person attacked.
 There was abuse of superior strength but it could not qualify the killing to murder because it has not been
sufficiently alleged in the information. But the abuse of superior strength should be applied as a generic
aggravating circumstance and not as a qualifying circumstance.
Fallo:
 WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE, and finds the accused guilty of HOMICIDE with aggravating
circumstance of superior strength, sentenced to suffer indeterminate penalty of prision mayor to reclusion
temporal.
•There is treachery when the offender committed any crime against persons employing methods in the execution
without risk of harm to himself and that the offended party was given no opportunity to retaliate
SANCHEZ VS DEMETRIOU
FACTS:
 The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate charges against several persons,
including Antonio Sanchez, with regard the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez.
 The PNP Commander issued an “invitation” for Sanchez to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim in
Laguna. He was immediately taken to the said camp.
 At a confrontation of the same day, Sanchez was positively identified by persons who both executed
extrajudicial confessions with him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez.
 He was then placed on “arrest status” and taken to the DOJ in Manila were a warrant of arrest was served to
him after the hearing.
 The RTC of Laguna filed 7 informations charging Sanchez and several others with the rape and killing of
Sarmenta.
o The court issued warrants of arrest for all the accused.
 The 7 cases were transferred to Manila, raffled to Judge Demetriou and were subsequently amended to
include the killing of Gomez. (because of tense atmosphere in Laguna in favor of Sanchez and relationship of an
employee in the court with one of the accused)
 Sanchez filed a motion to quash the information, but was denied.
 Sanchez filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of injunction.
o On several grounds, including that he can only be tried by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the accused.

HELD:
 No. There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and the
petitioner’s office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged.
 The offense can stand independently of the office.
 As the information in this case has no allegation that the crime was connected with discharge of his functions
as a municipal mayor, there is no intimate connection between the offense and his office.
 In this case, the abuse of office is not present because the crime is committed without the need of the said
office.
 Therefore, the crime is triable by regular courts.
 No, The crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner stands charged obviously does not fall under
paragraph (1), of PD 1606 as amended by PD 1861, which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it
covered by paragraph (2) because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of the petitioner.

 The PETITION is DISMISSED and respondent judge DIRECTED to continue trial.

THE TEST: DID THE ACCUSED ABUSE HIS OFFICE IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE CRIME? IF HE DID, THEN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE IS PRESENT.
PEOPLE VS LAPAN
FACTS:
 Coming home from a place of worship in Cavite City, Violeta Parnala and her common-law husband Clark Din
noticed that their house was locked from the main door
 Din went to the back to try and open the room occupied by his six year-old son Jayvee and housemaid
Teresita
o As Violeta continued to knock, 3 people rushed out, including accused Ernie Lapan
 She shouted, and Din pursued the 3 men but, he failed to catch up to them
 When he returned his neighbors were waiting at the front of his house and accompanied him in going inside
 They searched for his son, and housemaid
o And they found them in a locked bathroom on the 2nd floor, the housemaid dead with her hands and
feet tied, and his son immersed in a water container, also dead.
 After interment it was also realized that a ring and necklace was missing
 An information was filed charging robbery and double homicide against Ernie Lapan and the 2 other men
o Only Ernie was arraigned the other 2 remained at large
 He pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced
 Prosecution witness Parnala positively identified him and the 2 other accused because the scene was well-
lighted by an electric post
o And she knows him as a resident of the place, and as for the 2, 1 is a driver and a 1 is a former buyer of
gold from her
o Another witness also testified that she was doing laundry when she was shoved against the wall by
Lapan because Din was chasing him
 Lapan interposed alibi as a defense.
o According to him he was at a birthday party, drinking liquor
o He said that nothing unusual happened and after the party he proceeded to talk with some friends
o He also said that he does not know the 2 other accused
o And that the following morning, he was pinpointed by witnesses as one of the assailants.
 The Regional Trial Court of Cavite City found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Double
Homicide sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua (indemnify the heirs of Jay Vee Parnala
and Rosalinas the amount of 30,000 each and pay 1,100 as the amount of the necklace)
 He appealed from the decision of the RTC, alleging that the court erred in giving more weight to the version of
prosecution
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering age and morada as an aggravating circumstance
 Whether or not the accused-appellant’s defense of alibi should be given more weight
HELD:
 The trial court erred in not considering the age of the deceased as aggravating circumstance. Jay Vee was
barely six years old when ruthlessly stabbed 14 times before his body was submerged in the pail.
 The trial court also erred in disregarding morada which aggravated the offense as the crime took place and
was committed by the accused-appellant in the house of the victims.
 The accused-appellant showed greater perversity in his deliberate invasion of the tranquility and privacy of
Parnala’s domicile.
 The defense of alibi by the accused is devoid of merit.
 Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, and for it to prosper it must be
established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was at some other place for such a period of time
as to negate his presence at the time the crime is committed.
 The charge of robbery however, was not proven as there is no conclusive evidence proving the physical act of
asportation by the accused-appellant.
 The JUDGMENT of the LOWER COURT IS MODIFIED, accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of HOMICIDE considering the presence of two aggravating circumstances morada and disregard of
age. Accused appellant sentenced to suffer indeterminate penalty of 12 years of Prision Mayor to 20 years of
reclusion temporal for the death of JayVee and another for the death of Teresita Rosalinas.
PEOPLE VS CATAPANG
FACTS:
 One evening, Aventurado boarded a tricycle along Candelaria, Quezon.
 Tricycle driver Jonathan Garcia started his tricycle when he suddenly heard gunshots coming from the
passenger side of his tricycle.
 He saw a person pointing a gun at his passenger and he was frightened so he ran towards the other side of the
street, illuminated by a lamp post near the tricycle.
 After shooting seven times, assailant left still holding the gun.
 Garcia returned and noticed that Aventurado was seriously wounded so he brought the victim to the hospital
 Around the same evening, the 2 guards on duty at a department store also heard the gunshots.
 They rushed on the street corner and saw a person carrying the gun pass a fluorescent light and sped away.
 Both of them saw the accused Rafael Catapang and identified him as the person they saw earlier with the gun
to the policemen conducting the investigation.
 They gave their statements to the police.
 An information was filed against Catapang charging him with murder, qualified by treachery and taking
advantage of nighttime.
 He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
 He interposed alibi as a defense, claiming that he was asleep during the commission of the crime
 The Regional Trial Court of Lucena found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,
qualified by treachery and attended by aggravating circumstance of nighttime sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
 Catapang filed a notice of appeal on the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not treachery is established and night time can be an aggravating circumstance with treachery
HELD:
 Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing methods of
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.

 The essence of treachery is swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim while the latter was on board a
tricycle. While inside the tricycle, the victim could not up any defense against the unexpected attack on his
person. Undoubtedly, treachery attended the commission of the offense.

 The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated separately as it is absorbed in treachery.

Nighttime was an integral part of treacherous means adopted to ensure the execution of the crime.

 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC with MODIFICATION as to the awards of damages.
PEOPLE VS PASILIAO
FACTS:
 One evening in Pangasinan, Dominador Lalata was in front of the store of Lolita
o He was drinking nipa wine with a few men when the accused Tito and Armando Pasiliao arrived less
than an hour later
 Without any warning, Tito drew a jungle bolo from his back, rushed towards Dominador and hacked him
several times (in the head, scapular area, deltoid area, and right hand)
 Dominador tried to run to his sister’s house which was near the store but the 2 accused caught up to him as
he was wounded
o Tito held him by hair, and Armando collared him. Afterwards, both of them fired at him and run away.
 Dominador was rushed to the hospital but died before reaching it.
 An information was filed, charging the 2 accused with murder qualified by treachery, and an information for
illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions was filed against Armando
 Only Armando was tried as Tito remained at large.
 The Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region, Dagupan City found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder with the use of unlicensed firearm, attended by the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and an indeterminate penalty for the illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition. (17 yrs and 4 months which is the maximum period of Prision Mayor in its
maximum period Reclusion Temporal in its medium period as minimum, to 20 years which is the medium period
of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua as maximum)
 The accused filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the trial court.
o The lower court erred in disfavoring the defense of alibi
o The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused beyond proof of reasonable doubt
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be appreciated in this case
 Whether or not the trial court erred in disfavoring the defense of alibi
HELD:
 No, the SUPREME COURT ruled that nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this
case.
 Nighttime by itself is not an aggravating circumstance.
 It becomes aggravating only when it is especially sought by the offender, taken advantage by him to facilitate
the commission of the crime to ensure his immunity from capture.
 There was no proof that nighttime was deliberately sought in committing the crime, hence, it should be
disallowed as an aggravating circumstance.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the Trial court, as regards the crime of murder, but MODIFIED
the penalty to reclusion perpetua as regards the crime of Illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

 The defense of alibi cannot prosper as the accused was not able to show by clear evidence that it was impossible
for him to be at the store of Lolita. Also it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the prosecution
witnesses.
 There is treachery when the offender committed any crime against persons employing methods in the execution
without risk of harm to himself and that the offended party was given no opportunity to retaliate.
 As regards the penalty for the illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, there was an error in the decision of
the lower court.
 If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm the penalty of death shall be imposed.
(PD 1866). The death penalty cannot be imposed under the 1987 Constitution. Indeterminate sentence law does
not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death or life imprisonment.
PEOPLE VS DIZON
FACTS:
 One evening, Arlie Rosalin, an engineering student from Bataan alighted from a bus along EDSA just before
Quezon City
 She heard someone calling her, and found Renato Dizon behind her
o A knife was pointed at her, and Dizon announced holdup, asking for her wallet, jewelry and valuables
 She was forced to walk with him while being threatened with a knife
 Every time they pass a well-lit place, she looks at the man, to remember details about him and have him
arrested should she escape from him
 They reached a dark and empty basketball court, and she was ordered to remove her pants and underwear
o She cannot refuse because of the knife, and even if she screamed nobody would hear her
 She was sexually assaulted and kissed, and her nipple, back and vagina were bitten
 She was forced to do indecent things and assume embarrassing positions and was frequently hurt physically if
she tries to refuse.
o When she felt she was about to be killed, she broke free with all her might and ran as fast as she could
 With the help of the barangay and police officer, the accused was able to be pinpointed by Rosalin 3 days
after
 An information was filed against Renato Dizon, charging him of the crime of robbery with rape.
 Dizon pleaded not guilty and trial commenced.
o Prosecution presented several witnesses, including the victim, the police who arrested the accused and
the medico-legal officer who examined the victim.
 The accused interposed denial and alibi as a defense.
 The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City found that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the accused on the crime of ROBBERY WITH RAPE, attended by two aggravating
circumstances sentencing him to suffer the PENALTY OF DEATH (CRUELTY and UNINHABITED PLACE)
 The case was elevated to the SUPREME COURT for automatic review.
o The lower court erred in appreciating cruelty and uninhabited place against the accused.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance
HELD:
 No, the trial court properly appreciated uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance.
 The determination of considering a place uninhabited is whether or not at the scene of the crime, there was a
possibility of the victim receiving some help.
 In this case, the accused sought for the solitude of the basketball court to ensure the victim would not be
able to receive any help.
 The place was isolated, and obstructed from view by high walls of houses, and was cloaked by the darkness
of the night.
 Even if she had screamed, nobody will be able to hear her.
 CRUELTY in this case was present when she was forced to do dehumanizing indignities such as raping her,
forcing to fondle and put in her mouth the foul-smelling penis an assume indelicate positions. She was also
banged to taxi hood, slammed against a wall and slapped in the face.

 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS the decision of the TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE VS PERALTA
FACTS:
 The case is about the death of Louise Remando, an agent of NBI, the accused being Gilbert Peralta, a member
of INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION UNIT OF CENTRAL POLICE DISTRICT. There are two conflicting versions.
 According to prosecution witnesses who were with Remando, they had just watched a basketball game and
were on the way to pick up prostitutes. (schoolmates and fraternity brothers)
 When they reached a certain hotel in Quezon City, Rimando talked to a pimp, to avail of the services with
discount as an NBI agent.
o Then the 2 women, and the 2 pimps boarded the jeep
 While on their way the pimp noticed a taxi following them, so they pulled over.
o The pimps and the one of the lady alighted the jeep
o Gilbert Peralta, coming from the taxi and holding a firearm approached Remando
 Asking if they were policemen and Rimando said he is an agent of NBI.
 Peralta shot him twice in the body
 As for the defense, Gilbert Peralta invoked that he was on the performance of his duty.
o He was dispatched near a hotel in Quezon City because of the prostitution in the area, pursuant to a
mission order
 He tailed the vehicle where 2 gays and 2 women boarded, as he was positive that they were prostitutes, and
he has the duty to effect an arrest
 While conducting police surveillance on a taxi, he spotted young girls in front of the hotel
o When the taxi stopped, a pimp (Reyes) approached him and were offered girls, which lead him
identifying himself as a police officer
o Then the pimp and 2 girls and another gay boarded an owner type jeep
o So Peralta followed the vehicle to effect an arrest.
 When the vehicle stopped, he approached the passengers and identified himself as a police officer to Rimando
o He said the girls are subject to arrest
o The heated discussion lasted for 2-3 minutes
 The girls alighted the vehicle after hearing that they will be arrested
o Peralta tried to pursue the girls but Rimando held him back and his gun
o When the companions of Rimando were approaching, he maintained hold, and pressed the trigger
twice
 He reported the incident to the Officer in Charge of the Intelligence Investigation Unit
o It was only after one and half months following the shooting that Peralta was identified as the
assailant of the victim
 Roberto Reyes, the pimp corroborated with his testimony
o And according to him they struggled for the possession of the gun after a heated argument, and thereby
hearing 2 gunshots
 He was charged with the crime of murder and pleaded not guilty.
 After weighing the evidence, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (branch 106) rendered a decision finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation (sentencing him to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua)
 Hence, Peralta appealed raising different errors including:
o The trial court erred in finding treachery and evident premeditation attended the shooting of the
victim.

ISSUE:
  Whether or not the presence of evident premeditation is established

RULING:
 No, evident premeditation was ruled out by the SUPREME COURT. For evident premeditation to be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, 3 requisites must concur:
o The time the offender decided to commit the crime
o An overt act which manifests his determination
o The lapse of time between the determination and execution
 In this case, there was no proof of time of that the accused determined to commit the crime.
 The accused did not even know the victim before their confrontation at the place of the shooting.
 Tailing the victim is also not an overt act by the accused to kill the victim as his purpose was to arrest the
women suspected to be prostitutes.
 The Supreme Court also ruled out treachery because the victim saw the appellant with his gun while walking to
his direction. He was not unaware of the danger of being shot. He also provoked the accused when he engaged
in an altercation with him.
 The Supreme Court MODIFIED the decision of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, the appellant guilty of the crime of
HOMICIDE sentencing him to indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of prision mayor as minimum to
reclusion temporal as maximum.

 The Supreme court ruled that 2 requisites must concur before this defense can prosper:
o 1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty, or a lawful exercise of a right or office
o 2. The injury caused is a necessary consequence of the performance of such duty.
 In this case, the requisites were absent.
 The appellant was not in the performance of his duties at the time of the shooting, since the girls he was
attempting to arrest were not in any act of prostitution in his presence.
 Also, the fatal injuries the appellant caused the victim were not a necessary consequence of his performance of
his duty as a police officer.
 His duty to arrest the female suspects does not include the right to shoot the victim to death, notwithstanding
the fact that he shot him twice.
 He first invoked self-defense as a justifying circumstance. However, since there is no unlawful aggression by the
victim, the claim of the accused is not credible.
PEOPLE VS APELADO
FACTS:
 The case is about the murder of Rodolfo de Jesus, on the hands of the accused Jose Apelado, Herman Bacani and
Robert Bacani with Robert being at large.
 According to prosecution, one night in Nueva Vizcaya, Rodolfo de Jesus was walking in front of the house of
Quidayan, when he was overtaken by Jose Apelado, Herman Bacani and Robert Bacani
 After asking what his fault with them is, he raised his hand to prepare for a fight
 Herman hit his legs with wood. He fell down and the three surrounded him
 Herman stabbed his legs and throat with a knife
 Apelado hacked him with a bolo twice, at the top of his head and nape
 Robert thrust an ice pick at his back, and the three ran away leaving him on the ground.
 This was witnessed by Luzviminda Padua as she was around 15-20 meters away from the scene, waiting for her
husband
 Another witness Joseph Quidayan saw, at a distance of 3 meters, Apelado hack de Jesus, and Robert ran toward
their house, when he was awoken and heard the commotion
 The doctor who conducted the autopsy also supports these testimonies, with respect to the characteristics of the
wounds sustained by the victim. (The wounds were caused by different instruments, hacking wounds on the head
and occipital and stab wounds on the upper and lower left lobe of the lung)
 On the other hand, Apelado and Herman interposed alibi and denial as a defense.
 Apelado claimed he was at a barangay fiesta with his wife,returned home, slept and was arrested the
following day.
 German claimed he was a minor and that he was at his house when the crime was committed, the
police asked about the crime but he denied any knowledge, and 2 months later he was arrested.
 The Regional Trial Court of Nueva Vizcaya found them guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength and evident premeditation, sentencing Apelado to to suffer reclusion perpetua,
and Bacani of reclusion temporal.
 Hence the appeal by the accused.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not abuse of superior strength is properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance
 MAIN ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence on the testimonies of the witnesses
HELD:
 Yes, abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. This circumstance is appreciated when the
aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked.
 In this case the aggressors were armed, hit the legs of the unarmed victim which caused him to kneel, and to be
stabbed above the knee. This deprived him of the means to stand or run, and the aggressors took turns to inflict
wounds on him. (He was left with 15 external injuries and 4 internal injuries).
 Treachery was not appreciated because the victim was prepared to fight, premeditation also ruled out as there is no
evidence that accused preconceived the crime.
 However, Herman was entitle to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, as he was 17 years old during the
time the crime was committed.
 Accused were positively identified by 2 credible witnesses and they cannot prove that it is physically impossible for
them to be at the scene of the crime. This was also supported by the post mortem findings of Dr. Agtarap.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC but deleted the award for damages.
PEOPLE VS REBAMONTAN - TREACHERY
FACTS:
 The case is about the death of Pedro Cagrado Jr, on the hands of the accused Hilario Rebamontan. There were
2 versions on the case.
 According to the prosecution, Lucas Calinaya and his neighbors were conversing
o Not far from their position was a basketball court.
 While his attention was on the court, he saw Rebamontan stabbed Pedro Cagrado Jr. with a small sharp bolo
o According to him, Rebamontan was initially behind the victim, but the victim turned around as
Rebamontan was about to stab him and was hit on the chest
o The victim was not aware of the attack which made him unable to parry it
 Pedro went towards their direction, and then fell and died after reaching the fence.
 Pedro’s cousin informed a neighbor police officer about what happened and the accused was subsequently
arrested
 A medico legal expert revealed that his cause of death was a severe hemorrhage due to a stab wound
 As for the defense, Rebamontan invoked self-defense as a justifying circumstance
o According to him, when he was returning home from the market, he met with Pedro and Pedro
stabbed him twice but he was not hit
o Which led him to drawing his weapon and stabbing Pedro
o He alleged that Pedro had a grudge against him (because of his refusal to his request to drink at his
house)
o He also said that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities
 The court took into account the self-defense of the accused, but was not persuaded as the accused failed to
prove by convincing evidence that it was the victim who was the unlawful aggressor.
 The court ruled that there was presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance as the victim did not have the
slightest suspicion that he would be assaulted and that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in the
absence of direct evidence of the planning and preparation to kill when the plan was conceived
 Voluntary surrender of the accused was also not appreciated as the fact alone that he did not resist arrest and
peacefully went with the authorities does not mean he voluntarily surrendered
 The Regional Trial Court of Eastern Samar found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER
qualified by TREACHERY, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
 Hence the automatic review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance to convict the
accused of the crime of murder
 Whether or not voluntary surrender can be appreciated and the proper penalty is death
RULING:
 No, the trial court did not err in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance because the act of
stabbing commenced from behind the victim who was unaware and had no opportunity to parry the attack.
 The essence of treachery is the unexpectedness of the attack upon the unsuspecting and unarmed victim, who
did not even give the slightest provocation.
o 2 conditions must concur; 1) the malefactor employs means that ensures his safety from retaliation of
the victim 2) the method is deliberately adopted by the accused.
 The fact that the victim was facing the accused at the time of the attack does not rule out its treacherous
nature because the attack was sudden and unexpected giving no opportunity for the victim to defend himself.
 Voluntary surrender has 3 requisites: 1) offender not arrested, 2) offender surrenders to a person with authority,
3) surrender is voluntary. In the circumstances the police looked for him and his arrest was imminent. To be
voluntary, surrender must be spontaneous and deliberate.
 Proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, because there are no aggravating circumstances after the killing was
qualified with treachery.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision with MODIFICATION, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua
instead of death.
PEOPLE VS ACURAM
FACTS:
 Ronaldo Manabat and 3 other companions are on their way home from work and from the market in Misamis
Oriental
 On the side of national highway, they flagged a jeepney, but the jeepney swerved dangerously towards them
o Ronaldo was angered and shouted that they were almost run over
o A passenger was heard shouting and thereafter two gunshots were heard, and sparks coming out
from the front right side of the jeepney were seen
 Rolando was brought by his companions to the hospital because he was shot on the right knee
o He was in need of blood transfusion so he was transferred to another hospital
 Unfortunately, he died the day after, following his surgery.
o Massive loss of blood due to his wound being the cause of death. The wound was fatal as it entered the
front of the knee, and exited at the back, causing 2 wounds.
 It was found out by investigation by the police that Orlando Ocuram, a policeman, was among the passengers
of the jeepney, was the only one with firearm, and was seated at the front right side of the vehicle.
 He was surrendered by his commanding officer to the custody of the court.
 On motion by the prosecution, the trial court suspended Ocuram from service and was detained at the
provincial jail.
 During trial he admitted he was on board the jeepney but denied firing the gun. He claimed that it was
impossible for him to fire it as he was sandwiched in between the driver and his father in law.
 The Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
qualified by treachery, and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 He filed his notice of appeal, raising several issues including:
o That the trial court erred in declaring that the killing was attended by treachery
o The trial court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery can be appreciated in the case at bar
 Whether or not mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated
HELD:
 According to the Supreme Court, the trial court erred in appreciating treachery in the case at bar.
 For treachery to be appreciated there must be proof that the accused consciously adopted a mode of attack to
facilitate the killing without risk to himself.
 In this case, the shooting was done at the spur of the moment.
 The victim shouted curses at the driver and passengers of the jeepney. The shooting was an instantaneous
response to the cursing.
 Treachery cannot be appreciated where the accused shot the victim as a result of impulse rather than a
deliberate act of the will.
 Voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up to the authorities because
he acknowledges guilt and wishes to save the trouble and expense to be incurred in his search and capture.
o In this case it was his commanding officer that surrendered him to the custody of the court.
 The SUPREME COURT MODIFIED the decision of the trial court, finding the accused guilty of the crime of
HOMICIDE sentenced to suffer the prison term of prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
PEOPLE VS MANHUYOD JR.
FACTS:
 This is a case of a father having raped his 17-year old daughter after the effectivity of RA 7659. Accused could
have been meted out the death penalty pursuant to Article 335 of the RPC, as amended by Section 11 of RA
7659 (AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE
THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)
 One morning in Zamboanga del Norte, RESTITUTO MANHUYOD JR, succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with his 17-year old daughter, RELANNE MANHUYOD, against her will and without her consent which resulted
to her being pregnant.
 Yolanda, the mother of Relanne, filed a complaint before the Central Visayas Office of the NBI against his
husband, charging him of the rape of their daughter.
 They gave their sworn statements to the Officer-in-Charge of the NBI Sub Office
 They filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office charging the accused with rape.
 After proceedings, an information charging the accused with rape was filed with the RTC of Zamboanga del
Norte
 The accused, at his arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and was set for pre-trial and trial.
 Subsequently, with conformity of the accused, the prosecution filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
Relanne and Yolanda executed an Affidavit of Desistance declaring:
o They “lost interest in further prosecution of the case as the case arose out of family conflict, which was
already patched up”
o The prosecution declared it cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt without the
testimonies of the complainants.
 The Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte denied the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that:
o The affidavit could not justify dismissal of the complaint as the “pardon” extended to the accused was
made after filing the information
o Once a complaint for a private crime has been filed, the State became the offended party and pardon
given by private complainant would be unavailing
o Section 20-A of RA 7659 provides that any person charged under the act for an offense where the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death would not be allowed to take advantage of the
provision on “plea-bargaining”
 On the date of the trial and on succeeding dates thereafter, mother and daughter did not appear in court,
despite the court’s order directing the prosecutor to file a complaint to hold them for indirect contempt, and the
NBI agents to arrest them
o Relanne and Yolanda had left Cebu probably to elude arrest after having learned that the court had
ordered their arrest
 The court gave the prosecution 10 days to submit a formal offer of exhibits, and announced that if exhibits
would be admitted the defense could file a demurrer to evidence, and if denied, to be followed by defense
presenting its evidence
 The prosecution offered its formal exhibits
o The accused objected to the admission of the exhibits on the ground that they were hearsay
 The trial court admitted the exhibits as exceptions to the hearsay rule
o The court held that since it was a settled rule that an affidavit was not considered the best evidence if
the affiant was available, then in this case that mother and daughter was unavailable their affidavits are
admissible as best evidence.
 The accused informed the court that he waived his right to present evidence and asked the case be submitted
for decision
 The court found him guilty of the crime of Rape by force and intimidation with the aggravating circumstance
of Relationship sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
 Accused filed his notice of APPEAL imputing the following errors:
o The trial court erred in not dismissing the criminal complaint against appellant for evident lack of
interest to prosecute
o In admitting as evidence the hearsay testimony of the prosecution witnesses
 o In rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that the guilt of appellant was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the accused was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
 Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing death penalty not because of the provisions of Article 335 of
the RPC as amended by RA 7659, but due to the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of
the RPC (book discussion)
HELD:
 The evidence of the prosecution failed miserably in meeting the quantum proof required in criminal cases to
overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence
 In view of the desistance offered by mother and daughter, their failure to appear and testify, the prosecution
was left with nothing but their sworn statements
 The testimonies of the NBI officials constituted inadmissible hearsay as it was related to them by mother and
daughter
o A witness can testify only to facts which he knows of his personal knowledge derived from his own
perception; otherwise it would be hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as “evidence not of what the
witness knows but of what he heard from others”
 The sworn statements of Yolanda and Relanne do not qualify as forming part of the res gestae.

 The trial court gravely erred when it imposed the death penalty not because of the provisions of Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.No. 7659, but due to the alternative circumstance of relationship
under Article 15 of said Code.
 Clearly then, the father-daughter relationship in rape cases, or between accused and Relanne, in this case, has
been treated by Congress in the nature of a special circumstance which makes the imposition of the death
penalty mandatory.
 Hence, relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, should no
longer be applied in view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659.
 It may be pointed, however, that without the foregoing amendment, relationship would still be an aggravating
circumstance in the crimes of rape (Article 335) and acts of lasciviousness (Article 336).
 The SUPREME COURT REVERSED the appealed decision of the RTC, ACQUITTING accused-appellant RESTITUTO
MANHUYOD, JR.