Art.

14-15

(1) People v. Molo

Facts: OSG: killing was attended with treachery. Treachery qualifies the killing into
Not long after the couple had retired, Simeona, who murder. Dwelling because the killing was done in the house. Recidivism and
had not yet fallen asleep, heard an indistinct sound of Reiteration because Accused-appellant had been previously convicted of
murmur and gnashing of teeth. Although she was murder, frustrated murder, grave slander, less serious physical injuries, qualified
seized by fear, she managed to peep through the trespass to dwelling and robbery. Accused appellant is not entitled to the
dilapidated buri wall and saw accused Dominador mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He did not surrender to the
Molo. She immediately lighted a kerosene lamp and authorities.
placed it on top of the trunk nearby. She tried to
awaken her husband, but the latter did not respond. Defense:
Rudely awakened, Venancio quickly stood up and Accused seek acquittal. proof of motive is unnecessary if the evidence of
with his right hand reached for his bolo which was atop identification is convincing. appellant contents that his identity as the assailant
the table nearby; but he was not able to retaliate in as was not established beyond reasonable doubt, because of — (a) alleged
much as Dominador Molo was quick to hack at him inconsistencies and incredible assertions in Simeona's testimony; (b) physical
again. Fearing for her own life, Simeona rushed out of conditions which rendered it impossible for her to recognized accused-
the house through the door of the unfinished kitchen appellant; (c) her alleged admission that she pointed to accused-appellant as
to summon help from her son, Alejandro Gapisa, who the assailant because he was a hated criminal in their locality; and (d) that the
was at Roman Mangaring's house some 100 meters so-called dying declarations should not have been accorded credence,
away. because the victim could not have identified his assailant.
Venenancio Gapisa Died
Lower Court: SC: Petition Denied. Death Penalty and affirmed CFI
Information for murder with treachery, with abuse of superior Appellant is not entitled the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
strengtj, Dwelling, recidivism surrender. For in order that the same may be properly appreciated in favor
Alejandro Gapisa, the victim's son, and Roman Mangaring, of the accused, it must appear that — a) he had not been actually
a neighbor, who both testified on the ante-mortem arrested; b) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent;
statements of the victim, establish the guilt of accused- and c) his surrender is voluntary, which circumstances are not present in
appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder this case.
qualified by treachery, and aggravated by circumstances It appears that accused-appellant is an incorrigible criminal with clearly
of dwelling, recidivism and reiteration, it appearing that anti-social proclivities against which the community has the need, if not
accused has been convicted by final judgment of murder, the right, to defend itself. Where, as in this case, the reformative end of
frustrated murder, grave slander, less serious physical injuries, punishment seems to have failed in amending his criminal tendencies
qualified trespass to dwelling a robbery, and, had served The imposition of the supreme penalty, is not only justified by the facts of
sentences for said crimes this case, but is required as a measure of social defense. Society had given
CFI of Romblom charged accused with Murder after off- accused-appellant several chances. It would seem that compassion had
setting the lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary not reformed him, but had instead made him a hardened criminal and a
surrender with the aggravating circumstance of either menace to his fellow men. To spare his life is to endanger the lives and
dwelling, recidivism or reiteration properties of others.

(2) People v. Race Jr.

Facts: Defense: denies the

Elvira Collantes left her forty-year old sister Maria Pura (a cross-eyed, mute and retarded 40 year old polio allegations that When he
victim) in their house located at Masbate to go to the market alone with Maximo Race Jr also known as Jun. came out of the toilet
latter ask permission to use the toilet. Noel shouted at him and
Noel Abela, son of Alena Alim had just come from school when he heard a voice and immediately ran to the teased him. He got angry
kitchen where the voice came from and saw Race putting his pants and slapped Noel and
Noel asked aunt Maria what Race did to her she moved her body forward and backward in a push-pull threw one of his slippers
movement. to (sic) the latter.No
Noel accused Maximo Race Jr. for raping Maria Pura. rape.
RTC of Masbate: SC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape without reiteracion
judgement of This notwithstanding, the allegation therein that the accused had sexual intercourse with a woman who is retarded
conviction for and an imbecile implies that the victim was not in full possession and control of her moral reasoning faculty; this is
the crime of sufficient enough to have alerted the accused that the charge against him is for rape under the circumstance that
Rape with ACs of the woman is deprived of reason.
reiteration
because he The trial court likewise erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion. This circumstance is not
admitted during alleged in the information. The prosecution did not prove it. Upon cross-examination of the accused by the Prosecutor,
cross- over the objection of the defense counsel, the only information elicited is that the accused had earlier been convicted
examination that for the crime of homicide, had served the sentence and had later been released.
he was previously
convicted of the It would thus be unfair to appreciate reiteracion against the accused. Appellant was earlier convicted for the crime
crime of of homicide which is punishable by reclusion temporal. Besides, for the same to exist, it is necessary that "the offender
homicide but has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
was out on crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty." That penalty is not equal or greater — but is definitely lower — than that
parole at the provided for the crime of ordinary rape which isreclusion perpetua.
time of rape.

1|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest

(3) People v. Macariola
Facts: Romeo de La Peña, an inmate at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa, was standing in Defense: Invoke self-defense. When he
his cell when suddenly he was approached and stabbed by appellant Macariola with an was trying to retrieve the money, he was
improvised deadly weapon called matalas and keep stabbing. Fernano Gomez upon kicked constitute unlawful aggression. The
hearing of the shouts of De la Pena , he immediately reported the incident and to whom the accused's contention that he drew from
appellant surrendered. his waist his "matalas" only when the victim
On the same day, Fernando Gomez, a year later, was also stabbed to death. When Appellant tried to get hold of his own weapon under
was investigated, he admitted having stabbed the victim de la pena. his pillow, and that the victim's weapon
fell on the floor because the accused was
Version of Macariola: (Serving the crime of Robbery) testified that he and deceased were able to pull said victim.
gambling. The latter lost and accused won all deceased’s money of PHP 6.00. While he was
holding the money, the victim snatched them. Victim kicked him, accused fell and stood up OSG: the special aggravating
with an improvised weapon circumstance of quasi-recidivism, under
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, is
Version of Vivero: (Serving the crime of Murder) testifiedWhile he was taking his breakfast, his attendant. The accused committed this
attention was called by loud exchange of words – a heated discussion between Macariola new felony while serving sentence for
and victim. Then Accused gave a thrust with Matalas Robbery imposed
Circuit Criminal SC: Murder qualified by treachery
Court of Pasig: Unlawful aggression was absent
Found Guilty of Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods or forms which tend directly and specially to insure the
Murder execution of the offense without risk to the accused arising from the defense which the victim might make. The
ACs: concurrence of the two conditions necessary for treachery to exist are present in this case, namely:
Treachery, (1) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would insure the offender's safety from any
evident defensive or retaliatory act on the party of the offended party, which means that no opportunity is given the latter to
premeditation, defend himself or to retaliate;
and recidivism (2) such means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously chosen
After he was kicked by the victim and as the latter turned to retrieve something from under his pillow, the accused drew
his improvised deadly weapon from his waist, pulled The evidence, however, does not support a finding of the existence
of evident premeditation.
A quarrel had precipitated the stabbing episode. victim, and stabbed the latter on the back.

(4) People v. Nazareno

Facts: Valdez, Magallanes and Francisco attended the wake of a friend. They drank liquor with Defense: Nazareno claimed that he left
Accused Nazareno and Saliendra. A heated argument ensued between Magallanes and his house at 9:30pm to buy milk. While
Nazareno but their companions pacified them. In the evening, next day, while Valdez, on the street, he noted a commotion
Francisco and their friend, Unos, were walking on the street, the Accuseds NAzareno and taking place then he bumped into
Saliendra blocked their path. Nazareno boxed Francisco who fled but Saliendra went after him Saliendra. Nazareno proceeded home
with a balisong. Francisco, who succeeded in hiding saw Nazareno hit David on the body with and went to Bed.
a stick while Saliendra struck David’s head with a stone. David ran towards a gasoline station
but Nazareno an Saliendra, aided by some barangay tanods, caught up with him. David died. Unos: testified that she saw Saliendra
chasing David
Information: Charged SC:
Nazareno and There is conspiracy: Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused
Saliendra, a barangay can prove Conspiracy. Saliendra appears to have delivered the fatal blow but Nazareno cannot escape liability
Tanod, of Murder because, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
RTC of Manila – Guilty
of murder, qualified by There is Abuse of Superior strength: There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use
abuse of superior excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair
strength and by advantage for the aggressor.
treachery Nazareno and Saliendro evidently armed themselves beforehand with a stck and a heavy stone, respectively.
CA – affirmed RTC David was unarmed. Hence, Both Accused exploited their superior advantage and knocked the defenceless
without treachery David unconscious.

(5) People v. Dulin

Facts: When a young man came running from the house of Danao Defense: Dulin testified that he was in his house. Annariao and
towards the house of Batulan, shouting that his Uncle Totoy Soriano arrived at his house to see the fighting cocks being sold by
(Batulan) had been stabbed. Tamayao rushed towards danao’s Alberto. Since that latter wasn not yet around, he talk with them
house and there he saw Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already about the price of the fighting cocks. Afterwhich, he approached
prostrate face down. Tamayao ran towards Batulan’s house to Bancud, Batulan, the cousin of his mother, stabbed him on the right
inform the Victim’s wife who was his aunt. Tamayao mentioned of of his body and in the left hand; that he complained to Batulan.
the long standing grudge between Batulan and Dulin of seeing Dulin ran to upper level of Danao’s house, pursued by Batulan who
them fighting in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two stabbed him again several times; that they grappled for the
occasions. He will soon have his day and I will kill him. weapon until Dulin was able to wrest it from Batulan. Dulin stabbed
Estelita mentioned of the heated discussion between her husband Batulan.
and his nephew Bancud. On that occasion, Dulin wielded a knife Dulin argues that he was in favour of Self-defense
with which he tried to stab her husband and was pacified only when Dulin posits that the totality of circumstances indicated that his acts
she went to the aid of her husband. She heard Dulin saying “You will constituted incomplete self-defense, and must be appreciated as
soon have your day, I will kill you “ in April 1990. a privileged mitigating circumstance.

2|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest

 Information: Accused SC: Guilty only of homicide
armed with a sharp blade There is no Treachery: Treachery, which was alleged in the information, is one such qualifying circumstance.
instrument treachery should not be appreciated in the killing of Batulan because the stabbing by Dulin did not take
Batulan by surprise due to his having been sufficiently forewarned of Dulin's impending assault, 32 and
RTC of Cagayan: Guilty of being thus afforded the opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or even to recover control of the
murder, appreciated the weapon from Dulin. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a swift,
privileged mitigating deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance
circumstance of incomplete to resist or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 33 The mode of attack must
self-defense and no not spring from the unexpected turn of events.
aggravating circumstance No Self-defense: In rejecting Dulin's argument, the CA observed that although Batulan had initiated the
attack against Dulin the unlawful aggression from Batulan effectively ceased once Dulin had wrested the
CA – affirms and modifies weapon from the latter.
RTC into a crime of No Incomplete-Self Defense: With Batulan's aggression having already ceased from the moment that Dulin
Homicide because it was divested Batulan of the weapon, there would not be any incomplete self-defense. Moreover, as borne out
the victim who attacked by his stabbing of Batulan several times, Dulin did not act in order to defend himself or to repel any attack,
first. but instead to inflict injury on Batulan.

(6) Fantastico and Villanueva v. Malisce, Sr.

Facts: Elpidio Malicse was outside the house of his sister Isabelita when all Defense: Salvador was at the 2nd floor when he heard his
of a sudden, he heard Isabelita’s son, Winston, throwing invectives at him. tenth son Winston crying while the latter was being
Elpidio confronted isabelita but she also cursed him, which prompted the castigated by Elpidio. He went down to settle. Isabelita
former to slap the latter. Elipidio was under the the influence of alcohol in called the Brgy Chairman. Then the latter and Elpidio’s wife
that occasion. Brgy Chairman Heard and order to pacify. and daughter went to the house and Elpidio was given
Upon reaching Isabelita’s house, Elpidio saw his former’s son, Titus and her warm water, but he showered his daughter and Winston with
son-law, Gary and asked where he can find their parents. Dary and Titus it. Elpidio was brought to his hous and told the Brgy Chairman
responded, “Putang ina mo, and kulit mo, Lumayas ka, Punyeta ka”. that it was a Family Problem. Elpidio went back to the house
His anger with response, Elpidio kicked the door open and saw Isabelita’s of Salvador where Titus was sitting at the sofa. Elpidio asked
elder son, Salvador behind the door holding a rattan stick or arnis. Salvador Titus to open the Door until the former Kicked the dorr open.
hit Elpidio on the right side of his head that forced the latter to bow his head Titus escaped through the open door and Slavador went out
but Salvador delivered a second blow that his Elpidio on the right Eye brow. of the house because another Child was on the roof, afraid
Salvador attempted to hit elpidio for the 3rd time but the latter got hold the that it might fall.
rattan stick and the two wrestled on the floor and grappled for the Gary Fantastico testified that he was inside their house with
possession of the same rattan stick. Then Titus ran towards the two and his wife and Titus when the incident occurred. He and his
sprayed something on Elpidio’s face. Not being able to free himself from wife ran upstairs, while Titus went out when Elpidio hit the
the clutches of Salvador and to extricate himself, Elpidio bit Salvador’s door. Elpidio had a reputation for hurting people when
head. drunk.
Gary hit elpidio with a tomahawk axe when the latter was about to go out During Trial Salvador died
of the house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to take the Errors submitted to SC:
tomahawk axef from gary. Elpidio walked away from titus but Gary, still The information itself in this case does not allege all the
armed and Salavador chased him. elements and the necessary ingredients of the specific crime
Roland Villanueva, without any warning, hit elpidio on the back of his head of attempted murder.
with a lead pipe which caused the latter to fall on the ground. Elpidio Not all of the elements of attempted murder are present in
begged to stop, but no avail. Salvador hit countless times. this case.
Thereafter, a certain Mang Gil tried to break them off but Titus and Gary There is no treachery or any other qualifying circumstance
shouted at him: “Huwag makialam, away ng mag-anak ito” and the 2 to speak of in this case.
continued to maul Elpidio. The lower court and the court of appeals failed to consider
Elpidio was rushed to PGH the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Information: ACs of SC: Ruled for Conviction Guilty of Attempted Murder
Treachery and The Information is clear that all elements of the crime of attempted murder has been included
taking advantage of There is no treachery: From the facts proven by the prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second
superior strength for element of treachery is wanting. The incident, which happened at the spur of the moment, negates the possibility
the crime of that the petitioners consciously adopted means to execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where the
attempted Murder attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the
part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.
RTC of Manila: Guilty Qualifying circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength: But it was a lopsided attack as the victim was unarmed,
of attempted while his attackers were all armed (rattan stick, tomahawk and lead pipe). And the victim was also drunk. This
murder qualifying establishes the element of abuse of superior strength. The suddenness of the blow inflicted by Salvador on Elpidio
Circumstance of when he entered the premises show that the former was ready to hit the victim and was waiting for him to enter.
Abuse of Superior It afforded Elpidio no means to defend himself. And Salvador consciously adopted the said actuation. He hit
strength against Elpidio twice on the head. Treachery is present in this case and must be considered an aggravating circumstance
Gary Fantastico and against Salvador Iguiron.
Rolando Villanueva Docrtrine: Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
and acquitted Titus victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
Iguiron, Saligan selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime." "The fact that there were two persons
iguiron and Tommy who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength,
Ballesteros there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim." The evidence must establish that
the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. "To
CA: Affirms RTC with take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of
the charged of defense available to the person attacked."The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the
Attempted murder age, size, and strength of the parties.
Treachery absorbds Abuse of Superior Strength and also nighttime
3|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest
(7) People v. Bokingco
Facts: Noli Pasion and his wife, Elsa, were residing in a house along Mac Arthur Defendants: Appellants maintain that they could not
Highway, Angeles City. Pasion owned a pawnshop, which forms part of the house. be convicted of murder. They question the presence
He also maintained 2 rows of apartment units at the back of his house. The of treachery in the commission of the crime
apartment was leased to Dante Vilalicio, Pasion’s brother-in-law, and the considering that no one from the prosecution
appellants who were among the 13 construction workers employed by Pasion. witnesses testified on how Pasion was attacked by
Pasion and Vitalicio: Pasion heard a commotion and saw Bokingco hitting Bokingco.
something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open They also submit that evident premeditation was not
the screen door and attacked him with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued proven in the case. They belittle Bokingco's
and Vitalicio was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed to extrajudicial admission that he and Col planned the
push him away. Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but eventually subdued by a co- killing.
worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by his wife that pasion was The attendance of the aggravating circumstances
found dead in the kitchen. Vitalicio went back and saw Pasion’s body lying flat of nighttime and abuse of confidence was likewise
on the kitchen floor. Pasion expires a few hours later while Vitalico was treated for assailed by appellants. They aver that nighttime was
his injuries. not purposely sought but it was merely co-incidental
Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom when she hear her husband’s that the crime took place at that time. Neither has
moans and banging sound, she immediately got off the bed and went down. Col trust and confidence been reposed on appellants by
blocked her way. Elsa asked him why he was inside their house but Col suddenly the victim to aggravate the crime by abuse of
ran towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked sharp object under her confidence. Appellants claim that they were living in
chin. Elsa was sounded when she bowed her head to avoid the tear gas. COL an apartment owned by Pasion, not because the
instructed her to open the vault of the Pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she latter trusted them but because they worked in the
does not know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering him money but Col construction of the victim's apartment.
dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck and pulling her COL contends that to hold him guilty as co-
backward. She heard then Bokingco telling Col “Tara, patay na siya. Then they conspirator, it must be established that he performed
ran away an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Information: Murder with Treachery, SC: Acquitted COL and Bokingco guilty for the crime of Homicide.
Evident Premeditation, Abuse of Treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime to murder in the absence of any proof of
Confidence, and Nighttime the manner in which the aggression was commenced. For treachery to be appreciated, the
TC: Guilty of Murder. ACs Nighttime prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
and abuse of confidence only to himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of
Bokingco attack employed by him. Nobody witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack.
Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery While the witness Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to
and Evident Premeditation: Bokingco see the victim at that time.
made two (2) separate and dissimilar No Evident Pre-meditation: But the admitted manner of killing is inconsistent with evident
admissions: first, in his extrajudicial premeditation.
confession taken during the To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of
preliminary investigation where he the following requisites:
admitted that he and Col planned (a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime;
the killing of Pasion; and second, (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and
when he testified in open court that (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow
he was only provoked in hitting Pasion him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
back when the latter hit him in the No Nighttime: The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is anchored on
head. On the basis of his extrajudicial the presumption that there was evident premeditation. Having ruled however that evident
confession, Bokingco was charged premeditation has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be
for murder qualified by evident properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime
premeditation and treachery. to facilitate the commission of the offense.
CA: found conspiracy and ruled Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
Guilty of the Crime of Murder. Taking into account that fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he
Amended ACs, it was qualified by enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was no showing that he took
Treachery and Eident premeditation advantage of said trust to facilitate the commission of the crime.
and with the attendant ACs of No Conspiracy exists. It cannot be logically inferred that Col conspired with Bokingco in killing
Nighttime and abuse of confidence, Pasion. At the most, Col's actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was actually
with no MCs. the initial information filed against appellants before it was amended, on motion of the
prosecution, for murder. Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.

(8) People v. Tabarnero

Facts: Gary went to Defendants: Gary surrendered to Brgy Tanod Alarma. Gary admitted having killed Ernesto as Self-defense.
the house of Overcome with emotionover being separated from Mary Jane, Gary then went to Ernesto, but was not able to enter
Ernesto, where the as no one went out of his house to let him in. He instead shouted his pleas from the outside, asking Ernesto what he
former use to had done wrong that caused Ernesto to break him and Mary Jane up, and voicing out several times that he loved
reside as the live-in Mary Jane and was ready to maryy her.
partner of Mary When Gary was about to leave, the gate opened, but the latter blocked the blocked the blow with his hands,
Jane, Ernesto’s causing his left index finger to be broken. Gary embraced Ernesto, but the latter strangled him. At that point, Gary
step daughter. felt that there was a bladed weapon tucked at Ernesto’s back. Losing control of himself, Gary took the bladed
Gary and Ernesto weapon and stabbed Ernesto. Gary denied that he and Alberto conspired to kill Ernesto
had a The defense invokes the said justifying circumstance, claiming that all of the above three elements are present in
confrontation the case at bar. There was allegedly unlawful aggression on the part of Ernesto when the latter delivered the first
during which the blow with the lead pipe. The means Gary used to defend himself was reasonable, and the shouted professions of
latter was stabbed his feelings for Mary Jane could not be considered provocation sufficient for Ernesto to make the unlawful
nine times, causing aggression.
the latter’s death. The defense claims that there was no conspiracy between him and his son, Gary.
4|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest
 Information: SC: Guilty for the crime of Murder
accused The justifying circumstance of self-defense on the part of Gary cannot be considered – as held in CA, It held that nine
where stab wounds inflicted upon Ernesto indicate Gary's intent to kill, and not merely an intent to defend himself. The evidence
charged with presented by Gary to prove the alleged unlawful aggression, namely, his own testimony, is insufficient and self-serving.
murder and The alleged sudden appearance of Ernesto and his first attack with the lead pipe the very moment Gary decided to
ACs evident leave seems to this Court to be all too convenient, considering that there was no one around to witness the start of the
premeditation, fight.
abuse of Gary is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender – CA held that the delay of six months before
superior surrendering negates spontaneity, a requisite for voluntary surrender to be considered mitigating.
strength and Alberto is a principal by direct participation in the killing of Ernesto - Even more persuasive is the statement of the victim
treachery himself, Ernesto, as testified to by SPO2 Morales, that it was "the father and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero from Longos,
RTC of Malolos, Bulacan" who stabbed him (Dying Declaration)
Bulacan: Guilty The killing of Ernesto is qualified by treachery - treachery was amply demonstrated by the restraint upon Ernesto, which
for the crime of effectively rendered him defenseless and unable to effectively repel, much less evade, the assault.
Murder
CA: affirmed Doctrine: However, even assuming for the sake of argument that treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying
RTC. circumstance of abuse of superior strength would nevertheless qualify the killing to murder. Despite being alleged in the
Information, this circumstance was not considered in the trial court as the same is already absorbed in treachery.

(9) People v. Vilbar

Facts: Guilbert was met by theirchild he then carried in his arms. He noticed a man urinating at one of Defense: Accused denied the
the tables in front of their store. The man urinating was maong those engaged at one of the tables in fact of stabbing.
front of their store. The man urinating was maong those engaged in a drinking spree in a nearby store. It The inconsistencies and
appears that the accused was with the same group, seated about 2 meters awat. Guilbert immediately inaccuracies in the testimonies
admonished the man urinating but the latter paid no attention and continued relieving himself. Guildbert of the prosecution witnesses
put down his child when the accused rose from his seat approached Guilbert, drew out a knife and are relatively trivial, minor, and
stabbed him below his breast. The accused as well as his companions, scampered away while guilbert do not impeach their
called for help. He died. credibility.
Information: crime of murder with SC: We agree with the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant is guilty only of homicide in the
Treachery, evident premeditation absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RTC of Ormoc City: Guilty for the Absence of Treachery: treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden
crime of Murder for treacherously and unexpected. Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack.
stabbing with a knife. The suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the
CA: guilty for the crime of Homicide purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless
because did not find that treachery position was accidental.
attended the stabbing of Guilbert The prosecution in the instant case merely showed that accused-appellant attacked Guilbert
and, thus, downgraded the crime suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to prove that accused-appellant consciously adopted such
to homicide. mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.

(10) People v. Daniel Matibag

Facts: around 8:40pm, Duhan, who just came from a meeting with Defense: Matibag alleged that he was at the despedida party of his
other officers of the homeowners’ associations of Twin Villa neighbour when Duhan arrived together with other officers. Wanting
Subdivision, was walking along Iron St. Kumintang ibaba, to settle a previous misunderstanding, MAtibag approached Duhan
Batangas City when Matibag confronted Duhan, and asked, and extended his hand as a gesture of reconcillation. However,
“Ano bang pinagsasasabi mo?” Duhan replied “Wala”, and Duhan pushed it away and say “ Putang ina mo, ang yabang mo”
without warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan. thereby provoking Matibag to punch him. MAtibag saw Duhan pull
Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan who fell face- something from his waist and fearing that it was a gun, and Duhan
first on the pavement. Then Matibag shot him several more times. was about to retaliate, Matibag shot Duhan.
Information: Crime of Murder SC: Guilty for the Crime of Murder
with qualifying circumstance of There is Treachery: Court explained that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
Treachery. (Pistol attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. It was explained that a
RTC: Guilty of the crime of frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be
Murder. It refused MAtibag’s appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to
Self-defense. It appreciated the prepare for his or her defense. Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner
existence of Treachery since the by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was
attack was sudden, unarmed.
unprovoked and without NO Self Defense: It is well-settled that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete,
warning on the victim who was unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.
unarmed and in a defenceless Jurisprudence states that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim of self-defense. For
position. Likewise, the special unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or
aggravating circumstance of imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, 33 as against the one
use of unlicensed firearm claiming self-defense.
wasappreciated Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,treats the unauthorized
CA: Affirms RTC use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special
aggravating circumstance:

5|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest

(11) People v. Feliciano Jr. et al

Facts: 12:30pm to 1pm, 7 Sigma Rho Defense: It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates their
Fraternity Members were eating lunch at constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
the Beach House Canteen, near the Main They argue that the prosecution should not have included the phrase "wearing masks and/or
Library of UP, when they were attacked other forms of disguise" in the information since they were presenting testimonial evidence
by Several Masked men carrying Baseball that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.
Bats and Lead Pips. Some of them (with It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
Dennis Venturina) sustained injuries that without due process of law." 111 This includes the right of the accused to be presumed
required hospitalization. innocent until proven guilty and "to be informed of the nature and accusation against him."
Information: Against several SC: Guilty of Murder and Attampted murder
members of Scintilla Juris An information is sufficient when the accused is fully apprised of the charge against him to enable him to
Fraternity (Accuseds), prepare his defense: the inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
Conspiring, waering maskeds information does not violate their constitutional rights.
and other forms of disguise, It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
employing injuries, with information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be
treachery and evident appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating
premeditation, taking circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the
advantage of superior evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
strength, armed with baseball What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment
bats, lead pipes and cutters of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to
(With intent to kill) sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with,
RTC of QC: Guilty of the Crime they tried to conceal their identity.
of Murder and attempted Accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder, and there was treachery in the commission of
murder the crime: It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men armed with lead pipes and baseball
CA (Special division of 5): bats attacked Dennis Venturina and his companions, which resulted in Venturina's death.
affirms RTC 3 votes As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the offense committed against Dennis
(Guilty of slight physical Venturina was committed by a group that took advantage of its superior strength and with the aid of
injuries) armed men

(12) People v. Gunda

Facts: One afternoon, the victim Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son Eladio Jr., were walking Defense: Appellant denied the charge against
along a trail. Suddenly, when Eladio Jr. was ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid him. He claimed that in the afternoon of May
by appellant Gunda and his unidentified companions. The John Does held Eladio Sr.’s 25, 1997, he was at Barangay Camada
arms while Gunda stabbed him several times. Fearing for his life, Jr. ran away. gathering and cleaning rattan poles.
Information: charging Gunda and the John Does SC: Guilty for Crime of Murder
of murder, alleging that they acted in conspiracy Treachery is a qualifying circumstance which would qualify the killing as murder, while
and with evident premeditation and treachery. conspiracy is neither a qualifying circumstance [nor] a generic aggravating
RTC: convicted Gunda of murder and sentenced circumstance to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.
him to suffer the death penalty, holding that Treachery: here is also no doubt in our mind that the attack on the victim was attended
treachery and conspiracy are qualifying by treachery. The victim was unarmed and had no inkling of the impending attack on
circumstances. his person. The victim was attacked by Gunda from behind with a blow to his head
CA: affirmed the conviction but lowered the with a wooden pole. His cohorts then held the victim’s arms rendering him helpless and
penalty to reclusion perpetua, holding that immobile. There is no opportunity for the victim to escape or even offer a feeble
treachery is a qualifying, not an aggravating resistance.
circumstance, and that conspiracy is neither a treachery qualified the killing to murder. “There is treachery when the offender
qualifying nor a generic aggravating commits [a crime] against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
circumstance which would warrant the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
imposition of the death penalty. to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.”

(13) People v. Dela Cruz

Facts: Victoriano was seen punching and kicking Defense: Victoriano claimed that the incident was an accident. He came home drunk,
Anna Liza in front of their house. He then causing Anna to nag him. He asked her to go inside the house but she refused, so he
dragged her inside the house by pulling her hair. slapped Anna and dragged her inside the house. Due to her continuous nagging,
The spouses were heard shouting inside. Victoriano pushed her aside so he can go out of the house. However, she fell in a
Suddenly, Victoriano and Anna and their jalousie window, breaking it in the process. Her back was punctured by a piece of
daughter came out of the house, with broken glass.
Victoriano’s arms around her, and with blood Victoriano claims that Joel's testimony coincides with his own, which refers to the
spurting out of Anna’s mouth. Anna died due to slapping incident that occurred outside their house. It does not at all point to him as
hemorrhagic shock as a result of a stab wound. the actual perpetrator of the crime.
Victoriano Dela Cruz was charged SC: Guilty of Parricide
with parricide in an information filed A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of
in the RTC of Malolos, for the killing alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of
of his wife Anna Liza. obfuscating reason. In short, the defense must show that the intoxication is not habitual, and not
RTC convicted him of parricide subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental
(Qualifying circumstance of faculties. In this case, the absence of any independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his
relationship) mental faculties militate against Victoriano's claim that he was so intoxicated at the time he
CA affirmed the RTC. committed the crime to mitigate his liability.

6|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest

(14) People v. Naelga

Facts: Law enforcers received information that appellant Elly Naelga was peddling drugs in the Defense: Naelga claims that it was
public market. They conducted a buy-bust operation. The police officer, acting as a poseur buyer, PO2 Sembran who approached
posed as a security guard who wanted to stay awake at night. Naelga suggested shabu, and the and asked him to buy shabu for him,
police handed him marked money. Naelga left and the police planned his arrest. When Naelga the same cannot be considered as
returned, the poseur-buyer gave him the balance of the purchase price. Naelga took out a sachet an act of instigation, but an act of
of shabu and handed it to the poseur-buyer. He was arrested shortly afterward. "feigned solicitation.”
Information: Nalega was SC: Guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
charged in violation of No instigation in this case. The general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for
Secs. 5 & 11 (3) of RA its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done upon the "decoy
9165 solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were
Under Section 5, Article II present and apparently assisting in its commission. This is particularly true in that class of cases where the offense
of Republic Act No. 9165, is of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere
the penalty of life deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him free from the
imprisonment to death influence or the instigation of the detective.
and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to Here, the law enforcers received a report from their confidential informant that Naelga was engaged in illegal
P1,000,000.00 shall be drug trade in the public market of Rosales. Poseur-buyer PO2 Sembran then pretended to be engaged in the
imposed upon any drug trade himself and, with the help of his fellow buy-bust operatives, arrested Naelga in the act of delivering
person, who, unless the shabu to him. In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
authorized by law, shall the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the
sell, trade, administer, would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is
dispense, deliver, give no bar to prosecution and conviction; in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted.
away to another,
distribute, dispatch in A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and
transit or transport any effective mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation, the idea of
dangerous drug, committing a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
including any and all offense. In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was formed by the police officers precisely to test the
species of opium poppy veracity of the tip and in order to apprehend the perpetrator.
regardless of the
quantity and purity Instigation is resorted to for purposes of entrapment, based on the tip received from the police informant that
involved. Naelga was peddling illegal drugs in the public market of Rosales. In fact, it was Naelga who suggested to
RTC of Rosales, PO2 Sembran to use shabu; and, despite Naelga’s statement that he did not know anybody selling shabu, he
Pangasinan found him still took the money from PO2 Sembran and directly went to Urdaneta, where he claimed to have bought the
guilty as charged. illegal drug. Then he returned to the Rosales public market and gave the drug to PO2 Sembran.
CA: affirmed the RTC

7|C ri mi nal Law review art.14 -15 digest