119574376 crim 1 digests copy

8/20/2019 119574376 Crim 1 Digests Copy

1/36

1. PESIGAN VS. ANGELES (LIMITATIONS)

129 SCRA 174 (1994)

Nature: Petition to review the order of the RTC of CaloocanCity, Angeles.

Fact: Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan, both carabao dealers,transported 26 carabaos and a calf from ipocot Camarines !rto "atangas on April 2, #$%2 with the necessary permits. &n spiteof the permits, the carabaos were confiscated by 't. (enarosaand )r. Mirancda while passing "as!d, Camarines *orte. Theconfiscation was based on + *o. 626-A which provided thatno carabaos shall be transported from one province to anotherand violation wo!ld res!lt to confiscation of said animals anddistrib!tion to deserving farmers. The carabaos were distrib!tedaccordingly. The Pesigans filed for replevin and damages b!twas dismissed by !dge Angeles for lac/ of merit.

Iue: 0 o * the Pesigans can be held liable for violating +626-A which was p!blished on !ne #1, #$%2.

!e"#: The trial co!rts order of dismissal, reversed and set aside.The e3ec!tive order sho!ld not be enforced against the Pesiganson April 2, #$%2 beca!se it is a penal reg!lation p!nished morethan two months later in the fficial 4a5ette dated !ne #1,#$%2. &t became effective only # days thereafter.The word 7laws8 in Art. 2 of Civil Code incl!des circ!lars andreg!lations which prescribe penalties. P!blication is necessary toapprise the p!blic of the contents of the reg!lations and ma/ethe penalties binding on the persons affected by it.

2. TANA$A VS. T%VERA (LIMITATIONS)

1&' SCRA 27 (19)

Nature a*# Fact: This is a case where the petitioners, 'oren5o

Ta9ada, et al., see/ a writ of mandam!s to compel respondents,!an T!vera :in his capacity as +3ec Asst to the Pres;, et al., to

p!blish andleischer and >laviano R!bia, were fencingthe land of 4eorge >leischer, father of deceased )avis >leischer.This is located in the m!nicipality of Mait!m, o!th Cotabato.At the place of the fencing is the ho!se and rice drier ofappellant Mamerto *arvae5.

At that time, appellant was ta/ing his rest, b!t when he heardthat the walls of his ho!se were being chiselled, he arose andthere he saw the fencing going on. &f the fencing wo!ld go on,appellant wo!ld be prevented from getting into his ho!se and the

bodega of his ricemill. o he addressed the gro!p, saying

-BPare,if possible yo! stop destroying my ho!se and if possiblewe will tal/ it over - what is good,B addressing the deceasedR!bia, who is appellantBs compadre. The deceased >leischer,however, answered= B*o, gademit, proceed, go ahead.B Appellantapparently lost his e!ilibri!m and he got his g!n and shot>leischer, hitting him. As >leischer fell down, R!bia ran towardsthe Deep, and /nowing there is a g!n on the Deep, appellant firedat R!bia, li/ewise hitting him. "oth >leischer and R!bia died asa res!lt of the. &t appears, however, that this incident isintertwined with the long drawn o!t legal battle between the>leischer and Co., &nc. of which deceased >leischer was thesecretary-treas!rer and deceased R!bia the assistant manager, onthe one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whomwas the appellant.

Iue= 0 o * *arvae5 defense of property can be appreciated.

!e"#: *arvae5 that he did so in defense of his person and of hisrights, and therefore he sho!ld be e3empt from criminal liability.)efense of oneBs person or rights is treated as a D!stifyingcirc!mstance !nder Art. ##, par. # of the Revised Penal Code,

b!t in order for it to be appreciated, the following re!isitesm!st occ!r= E>irst. Fnlawf!l aggressionG Eecond. Reasonablenecessity of the means employed to prevent or repel itG EThird.'ac/ of s!fficient provocation on the part of the persondefending himselfE.

The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry !tterance bydeceased >leischer. There is no !estion, therefore, that there

was aggression on the part of the victims= >leischer wasordering, and R!bia was act!ally participating in the fencing.This was indeed aggression, not on the person of appellant, b!ton his property rights.

The third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lac/ ofs!fficient provocation on the part of appellant who wasdefending his property. As a matter of fact, there was no

provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at first andwas only awa/ened by the noise prod!ced by the victims andtheir laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stopand tal/ things over with him was no provocation at all. "e thatas it may, appellantBs act in /illing the deceased was not

D!stifiable, /*ce *0t a"" te e"ee*t 30r ut/3/cat/0* are5ree*t6 5art/cu"ar" te rea0*a8"e *ece/t 03 te ea*

e5"0e# t0 5ree*t 0r re5e" uc attac. He sho!ld therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, b!t he co!ld becredited with the special mitigating circ!mstance of incompletedefense, p!rs!ant to paragraph 6, Article #? of the RevisedPenal Code.

The C finds the aggravating :!alifying; circ!mstance ofevident premeditation not s!fficiently established. ince in thecase at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or

preparation to /ill the victims nor that the acc!sed premeditatedthe /illing, and cl!ng to his premeditated act, the trial co!rtBsconcl!sion as to the presence of s!ch circ!mstance may not beendorsed. +vident premeditation is f!rther negated by appellant

pleading with the victims to stop the fencing and destroying his

ho!se and to tal/ things over D!st before the shooting. "!t thetrial co!rt has properly appreciated the presence of themitigating circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender, it appearing thatappellant s!rrendered to the a!thorities soon after the shooting.'i/ewise, C also finds that passion and obf!scation attendedthe commission of the crime. The appellant awo/e to find hisho!se being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as wellas of his rice mill bodega being closed.


2/36

4. PEOPLE VS. ;ERNAR$O (N%LL%M CRIMEN N%LLA

POENA SINE LEGE)

12& SCRA &' (19&)

Nature= Petition for certiorari of the decision of C>& "!lacan,"r. & convicting the petitioners of violating P) II2 :Anti-!atting Act;, sentencing them to pay P 2, @@ each withs!bsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Fact= &&)R "+R*AR), tenant of 'eda ta. Rosa in herRiceland in P'AR&)+', "F'ACA* from ct. #$I2- A!g.#$I1, constr!cted a ho!se for their dwelling. 0itho!t the/nowledge of ta. Rosa, &sidro left and transferred to an

*icolas, transferring his tenancy rights to his son, CAJ+TA*.Thro!gh )r. Patricio Cr!5, ta. Rosa too/ possession of thewhole land and filed forcible entry against the petitioners.Petitioners lost in the C>& and lower co!rts b!t still failed tovacate the land. n A!g. 22, #$I1, a criminal complaint for theviolation of P) II2 was filed against the "ernardos and hencewere fo!nd g!ilty by C>& of "!lacan.

Iue: 0hether or not P)II2 applies to past!re lands.

!e"#: Petition granted, D!dgment of conviction set asideGcriminal case dismissed.

P) II2 is intended to apply only to !rban comm!nities, partic!larly illegal constr!ctions. *o person shall be bro!ghtwithin the terms of a penal stat!te who is not clearly withinthemG nor sho!ld any act be prono!nced criminal which is notclearly made so by the stat!te. :There is no crime when there isno law p!nishing it.;

. PASC%AL . ;OAR$ OF ME$ICAL E& of Ag!san del *orteand "!t!an City convicting &C+*T+ T+M"'R alias7Ronald8 for m!rder sentencing him to the penalty of recl!sion

perpet!a.

>acts= n )ec. ?@, #$%@, at aro!nd I=?@ pm in "rgy. Talo-ao,"!enavista, Ag!san del !r, T+M"'R bo!ght a half-pac/ ofHope cigarette from the store of F'&F CA4AMPA*4.0hile the latter was opening the pac/, a g!n shot was heard andCA4AMPA*4 fell to the floor with a g!nshot wo!nd in the

head. The acc!sed, together with another, barged into the room,demanding the firearms of the victim. "efore fleeing with thevictims .?% caliber g!n, T+M"'R filed tow more shots.

n A!g. #$%#, d!ring the mass s!rrender of dissidents,T+M"'R s!rrendered to Mayor )ic/ Carmona. n *ov. 26,#$%#, he was arrested by the "!enavista Police at the p!blicmar/et and detained at the m!nicipal Dail where he was seen by&CTR&A CA4AMPA*4, the victims widow and was

positively identified.

T+M"'Rs defense was an alibi= on the said date, he and hisfather had been in the ho!se of &'+R& P+R' in "rgy.Camagong.

Iue= 0 o * motive is essential in convicting Temblor

!e"#: )ecision of lower co!rt affirmedG civil indemnityincreased to P?@,@@@.

Motive is not essential when c!lprit has been identified. >actthat acc!sed has /nowledge of the deceaseds firearm iss!fficient eno!gh for motive. The fleeing of the acc!sed after

/illing and ta/ing CA4AMPA*4s firearm implies admissionof g!ilt.

Acc!seds alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification ofthe witness who had no base motive to acc!se him of the crime.&n order for alibi to be acceptable as a defense, it is not eno!ghfor the appellant to be elsewhere when the crime wascommitted, b!t it m!st be proven beyond reasonable do!bt thatit was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of thecrime. *asipit is accessible to Talo-ao by Deep or tricycle for #to 2@ min!tes.

7. PEOPLE . !ASSAN

17 SCRA 2'1 (19)

Nature: Appeal from a decision of the RTC of (amboanga Cityfinding the acc!sed g!ilty beyond reasonable do!bt of the crimeof m!rder and sentenced to recl!sion peret!a.

Fact= !ly 2?, #$%#, at aro!nd Ipm + AM* wasa bac/rider on the motorcycle of RAM* P&CH+' R. whenthey went to b!y mangoes at the >r!it Paradise near the "arterTrade (one in (amboanga City. AM* saw a person stabP&CH+' only once while he was par/ed 2-? meters away. Afterstabbing, the s!spect fled to P*". AM* r!shed the victimto the 4eneral Hospital where the latter died. &n the hospital, thewitness was interrogated as to the s!spects description, whoaccording to him was had semi-long hair, wearing white poloshort-sleeved shirt, maong pants, standing and with a dar/comple3ion. According to AM*, he only /nows the s!spect

by face and not by name. At >!neraria 'a Merced, police bro!ght the acc!sed L alone, for identification where the witness positively identified him as the /iller.

!e"#: )ecision reversedG acc!sed is ac!itted.

+vidence of the prosec!tion does not satisfy !ant!m of proof beyond reasonable do!bt. al!e D!dgment m!st not be separatedfrom the constit!tionally g!aranteed pres!mption of innocence.Prosec!tions evidence is wea/ and !nconvincing. +3perttestimony of the medico-legal officer :)R.A'+*T&*"+R*A'+(; contradicted on material points of the lonewitness. He fo!nd two stab wo!nds, :chest and at the left arm

posterior;, the nat!re of the wo!nds indicating they wereinflicted while the s!spect was in front of the victim.

The investigation cond!cted by the police was not satisfactory.The lone presentation of HAA* to AM* at the f!neral

parlor violated the acc!sed rights to co!nsel in all the stages ofinvestigation into the commission of a crime.Motive is essential when there is do!bt as to the identity of thec!lprit.

. PEOPLE . A! C!ONG (MISTA=E OF FACT)

1 P!IL 4 (191>)

2


3/36

*at!re= Appeal from the D!dgment of C>& of Ri5al convictingthe appellant of the crime of simple homicide with e3ten!atingcirc!mstances sentenced to 6 years # day of presidio mayor.

>acts= Ah Chong was employed as a coo/ at >ort McNinley. Hewas roommates with the deceased, PACFA' 4FA'"+RTat officers !arters O2I, abo!t 1@ meters away form the nearest

b!ilding, witho!t a loc/ and had only # door opening to the porch and # window. As a safety preca!tion, Ah Chong and

4!alberto had an !nderstanding that if either ret!rned late atnight, he sho!ld /noc/ and ac!aint the other as to his identity.n A!g. #1, #$@% at aro!nd #@ pm, he was awa/ened bysomeone trying to force open the door. He called o!t twice,70ho is thereK8, to which no answer was given. "eca!se of thevines covering the porch, the room was very dar/. 0hile callingo!t a threat to the invader, he was str!c/ above the /nee by theedge of the chair which was thrown towards his direction whenthe door was opened forcibly. 4etting the common /nife !nderhis pillow and str!c/ wildly at the intr!der which t!rned o!t to

be 4FA'"+RT. eeing it was his roommate, Ah Chong ran bac/ to his room to sec!re bandages and called to his employeesin Room O2% for help.

Prior to the incident, there had been several instances ofrobberies inside the port.

Iue= 0 o * one can be held criminally liable for doing an actthat wo!ld be e3empt form criminal liability had there been nomista/e of fact.0 o * malice or criminal intent is an essential element oringredient of the crimes of homicide and assassination asdefined and penali5ed in the penal code.

!e"#: )ecision reversedG acc!sed is ac!itted.

The definitions of crimes and offenses as set o!t in the penalcode rarely contain provisions e3pressly declaring that malice orcriminal intent is an essential ingredient of the crime.

*evertheless, the provisions of Art. # indicate malice andcriminal intent as an essential re!isite.

ol!ntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act, and which,witho!t intention there can be no crime. ol!ntary implies andincl!des the words 7con malice8 or with malice. 0hen the actwhich was act!ally intended to be done was in itself a lawf!lone, and in the absence of negligence or impr!dence, in generalwitho!t intention, there can be no crime.

Re!isites of Mista/e of fact=The act wo!ld have been lawf!l had the facts be how theacc!sed believed them to beGThe intention wo!ld have been lawf!lGThe mista/e was not attended by any fa!lt or negligence on the

part of the acc!sed.There m!st be no reasonable opport!nity to ascertain the facts+3cessive force negates mista/e of fact :A*&;

9. PEOPLE VS. OANIS

74 P!IL 27 (194&)

Nature= Appeal from the D!dgment of C>& of *!eva +ciDafinding the acc!sed g!ilty of homicide thro!gh rec/lessimpr!dence.

Fact: n )ecember 21, #$?%, Provincial &nspector, CAPT.4)>R+) M*) received a telegram from MAJR4F&) ordering the arrest :whether dead or alive; of oneA*+'M "A'A4TA, who was an escaped convict. The

said convict was informed to be with a bailarina named &R+*+.M*) then informed the defendants and instr!cted them toarrest "alagtas, and if overpowered, they were to follow theinstr!ctions in the telegram.A*&, /nowing a certain &R+*+, accompanied 4A'A*TAand went to the location of &R+*+ at Ri5al t. Fpon reachingthe place, they as/ed "R&4A)A MA''AR+ to point where&R+*+s room was. They were also informed that &rene wassleeping with her paramo!r. 0hen they reached the room,seeing a man with his bac/ towards the door, theysim!ltaneo!sly and s!ccessively fired at him /illing him. The

man /illed t!rned o!t not to be "alagtas, b!t one +RAP&T+C*.

Iue= 0 o * the /illing of Tecson was a mista/e of fact toe3empt anis and 4alanta from criminal liability.

!e"#= )efendants are g!ilty of m!rder with the mitigatingcirc!mstance of incomplete re!isites of performance of d!tyappreciated in their favor and sentenced to recl!sion temporal.

&gnorance of fact can be appreciated only when the mista/e iscommitted witho!t fa!lt of carelessness. )efendants had ampletime and opport!nity to ascertain the victims identity since hewas asleep. Mista/e in the identity of the intended victim cannot

be considered rec/less impr!dence.

1>. PEOPLE VS. ;%AN (C%LPA)

22 SCRA 1&& (19')

*at!re= Appeal from an order of C>& "!lacan in its CriminalCase O12?, overr!ling a motion to !ash on the gro!nd ofdo!ble Deopardy.

>acts= + "FA* was driving a passenger b!s of the 'a

Mallorca Company on !ly 2?, #$62 along McArth!r Highway,4!ig!into, "!lacan when it collided with the passenger Deep ofergio '!midao inD!ring $ passengers. :6 s!ffered slight

physical inD!ries, ? serio!s physical inD!ries and damaging the Deep to the e3tent of P #, ?$.@@;

n )ecember #$, #$6?, he was ac!itted in the !stice of PeaceCo!rt for slight physical inD!ries thro!gh rec/less impr!dence.However, prior the ac!ittal, the provincial fiscal of "!lacanfiled in the C>& a case for serio!s physical inD!ries and damagethro!gh property thro!gh rec/less impr!dence.

Iue: 0 o * the 2nd case places the appellant twice in Deopardyfor the same offense and is barred by the previo!s ac!ittal.

!e"#: The order of the C>& is reversed and is ordered to !ashand dismiss the charges.

nce ac!itted or convicted of a specific act of rec/lessimpr!dence, the acc!sed may not be prosec!ted again for thesame act. The gravity of the conse!ences is only ta/en intoacco!nt to determine the penalty, it does not !alify thes!bstance of the offense.

11. PEOPLE VS. $I+ON (NEGLIGENCE) 1 SCRA 127

(19)

Nature: An administrative complaint against respondent"alta5ar R. )i5on for rendering a manifestly erroneo!s decision

d!e to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law

Fact: The case in which the respondent rendered a decision ofac!ittal involved a to!rist, 'o Chi >ai, who was ca!ght by aC!stoms g!ard at the Manila &nternational Airport whileattempting to sm!ggle foreign c!rrency and foreign e3changeinstr!ments o!t of the co!ntry. At the time of his apprehension,he was fo!nd carrying with him foreign c!rrency and foreigne3change instr!ments :?%@ pieces; amo!nting toFQ?,?1$.I, in vario!s c!rrency denominations witho!ta!thority as provided by law.

At the time the acc!sed was apprehended, he was ableto e3hibit two c!rrency declarations, which he was s!pposed tohave accomplished !pon his arrival in Manila in previo!s trips.

&nformation was filed against 'o Chi >ai with the

RTC of Pasay City for violation of ec. 6, Central "an/ Circ!lar *o. $6@.

The respondent D!dge, in his decision ac!itting theacc!sed, stated= 7The fact!al iss!e for this Co!rt to determine iswhether or not the acc!sed willf!lly violated ec. 6 of Circ!lar

*o. $6@. The fact that the acc!sed had in his possession theforeign c!rrencies when he was abo!t to depart from thePhilippines did not by that act alone ma/e him liable forviolation of ec. 6. 0hat is imperative is the p!rpose for whichthe act of bringing foreign c!rrencies o!t of the co!ntry wasdone L the very intention.8

?


4/36

Iue: 0hether or not the respondent D!dge was g!ilty of grossincompetence or gross ignorance of the law in rendering thedecision in !estion

!e"#= The Co!rt fo!nd the respondent D!dge g!ilty of grossincompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave and serio!smiscond!ct.

The respondent D!dge has shown gross incompetence

or gross ignorance of the law in holding that to convict theacc!sed for violation of Central "an/ Circ!lar *o. $6@G the

prosec!tion m!st establish that the acc!sed had the criminalintent to violate the law. The respondent o!ght to /now that

proof of malice or deliberate intent :mens rea; is not essential inoffenses p!nished by special laws, which are mala prohibita.

12. PEOPLE VS. VAL$E+ (PROPOSAL AN$

CONSPIRAC,) #$ CRA #? :#$%%;

Nature:This case is before !s on a!tomatic review of thedecision of the Regional Trial Co!rt, >irst !dicial Region,"ranch 26, an >ernando, 'a Fnion, convicting the acc!sed-appellants )anilo alde5 and implicio rodio of the crime of

m!rder and sentencing each of them to death.

Fact: The ho!se of the Ma!iling family stands on the slope ofa mo!ntain in "arangay Ambagat, antol, 'a Fnion. At abo!t%=@@ oBcloc/ in the evening of I !ne #$II, the victim +lenoMa!iling, his sisters 'eticia and Thelma, his mother +smenia,and his father !anito were all in the yard of their ho!se.+smenia and !anito were !nder the awning of their ho!sefacing north, engaged in stringing together tobacco leaves. ThevictimBs brother )ionisio was eating his dinner in the wall-less/itchen located on the gro!nd floor of the ho!se. The victim+leno was seated with his bac/ toward the north and pl!c/ing ag!itar. The place and its s!rro!ndings were lighted by a ?@@candle power petroma3 lamp hanging !nder the northern end of

the awning of the ho!se.

0hile the Ma!ilings were th!s seated in their yard, a relative ofthe family, one Carolina, arrived and as/ed +smenia toaccompany her to a prayer meeting. +smenia dem!rred andinstead as/ed +leno to accompany Carolina. The victim wasthen D!st abo!t two :2; meters away from his parents and abo!tto stand !p when s!ddenly a very lo!d g!n shot rang o!t fromthe northern side of the yard and +leno fell to the gro!nd, cryingo!t to his father for help. !anito r!shed to his fallen son andcarried him into their ho!seG +leno, however, died immediatelythereafter.

The victimBs mother +smenia was abo!t to s!ccor +leno when

she instinctively loo/ed toward the direction from whence theg!nshot came and saw the two:2; acc!sed, )anilo alde5 andimplicio rodio, r!nning down the hill away from the bamboogroves on the northern side of the ho!se. )ionisio Ma!iling,

brother of the victim, also testified that he too had seen )anilowith a g!n and implicio both r!nning away in a westernlydirection. )anilo stated that he was then abo!t seven :I; metersaway from the acc!sed-appellants. )anilo alde5 was aneighbor and a relative of the Ma!ilings, while impliciorodio was their old ac!aintance residing in itio illaga,"arangay Corooy of the same townG th!s, both were well-/nownto +smenia and )ionisio Ma!iling. n % !ne #$II, theM!nicipal Health, fficer of "alaoan, )r. Monico . Morales,cond!cted an a!topsy which showed that the victim +leno hads!stained eight :%; g!nshot :pellet; wo!nds on his bac/.

The morning after the shooting, on % !ne #$II, gt. eg!ndoT!vera of the &ntegrated *ational Police, antol, 'a Fnion, wentto the ho!se of the Ma!ilings to investigate the death of +leno.He saw a petroma3 lamp hanging from the awning of thenorthern end of the ho!se, as well as footprints near the bamboogroves near the northern side of the ho!se. )!ring hisinvestigation, neither +smenia nor )ionisio informed gt.T!vera of what they had seen.

n #@ !ne #$II, !anito Ma!iling, the victimBs father,e3ec!ted a sworn statement before the police in the antolPolice !bstation. !anito admitted in his statement that he hadnot seen the acc!sed-appellants on the night of the shooting. Hedid relate, however, that three:?; days prior to the shooting of+leno, +leno had informed him that in case something !ntowardhappened to him :+leno;, the acc!sed-appellants )anilo alde5and implicio rodio sho!ld be held responsible, since he:+leno; had !arreled with them concerning their stealing and

robbing. !anito, f!rther, stated that the acc!sed )anilo has hada personal gr!dge against +lenoG )anilo had mortgaged to+lenoBs brother a stolen spading for/, a circ!mstance that +lenodiscovered when the real owner of the spading for/ came to tal/to him. +smenia, +lenoBs mother, gave no sworn statement onthat day. Ten :#@; days later, on 2@ !ne #$II, however, shemade a sworn statement to the Philippine Constab!lary in an>ernando, 'a Fnion. hortly thereafter, on 2? !ne #$II,)ionisio Ma!iling, +lenoBs brother, gave his own separatesworn statement also to the Philippine Constab!lary. "oth+smenia and )ionisio identified )anilo rodio as +lenoBs/illers. At the trial, +smenia Ma!iling was firm and categoricalin identifying the appellants as the men she saw r!nning fromthe bamboo groves immediately after the shooting..

!e"#: There is nothing in the record to show that the prosec!tion witnesses were moved by any improper motive toacc!se falsely the acc!sed-appellants one a relative and theother an old ac!aintance of so grave a crime as m!rder.

The prosec!tionBs evidence was more than ade!ate to s!stainthe finding of the trial co!rt of a conspiracy between )aniloalde5 and implicio rodio. Conspiracy being present, it doesnot matter that the prosec!tion had failed to show who as

between the two act!ally p!lled the trigger of the shotg!n that/illed +leno Ma!iling. #I "oth )anilo alde5 and impliciorodio are liable as co-conspirators since any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precisedegree of participation in the act.

The trial co!rt correctly appreciated the presence of treacheryand evident premeditation. The acc!sed had p!rposely so!ghtnoct!rnity and hid themselves behind the bamboo groves locatedclose by the victimBs ho!se and had fired at +leno Ma!ilings!ddenly, witho!t any warning, from behind obvio!sly to ens!rethe s!ccess of their deadly p!rpose witho!t any ris/ tothemselves and witho!t any possibility of retaliation.

ince both treachery and evident premeditation were present,and only one !alifying circ!mstance is necessary to constit!tehomicide into m!rder, evident premeditation may be consideredas a generic aggravating circ!mstance. The circ!mstance ofnighttime is, however, absorbed by treachery. A secondaggravating circ!mstance that the victim who had given no

provocation was slain in his dwelling was also fo!nd by thetrial co!rt.

1&. PEOPLE VS. NACIONAL

24 SCRA 122 (199)

*at!re= Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Co!rt of'ega5pi City

>acts= The si3 acc!sed, incl!ding the acc!sed-appellant, were allcivilian members of the barangay organi5ation of the CPP-*PAat )araga, Albay. Their organi5ation had a conference for the

p!rpose of identifying s!spected informers of the military whom

they perceived as posing a threat to the *PAs operations withinthe vicinity. They identified !irino 'agason and oel 'agasonas military informers and were targeted for li!idation.

According to Crisanto Miranda, a neighbor whoaccompanied the acc!sed that day, 0alter *acional approached!irino and said something to him. 0alter then p!lled o!t a g!nfrom his waist and shot !irino in the face, hitting him betweenthe eyebrows. !irino fell to the gro!nd and died instantly. Afew seconds later, Absalon Millamina shot oel 'agason on thehead. The gro!p then fled towards the direction of the RCP&

1


5/36

Relay tation. oels mother, who was at the scene of the crime,r!shed him to the hospital where he died a few ho!rs later.

The defense set !p by the acc!sed consisted of denials.Acc!sed-appellant avier Mirabete insisted on his claim that hewas merely watching a volleyball game when the shootinghappened. He denied being a member of the *PA or any rebelorgani5ation. He li/ewise denied the e3istence of a plot and aconspiracy to /ill the 'agasons. Acc!sed-appellants claimed thathe was a mere farmer, already 6$ years old and had barely

finished third grade in school. According to him, his advancedage made it impossible for him to Doin the *PA at the time of theincident. He contended that the testimonies of the witnessesidentifying him with the gro!p that /illed the 'agasons were!nreliable and hearsay beca!se both witnesses never /new him.

&ss!e= 0hether or not acc!sed-appellants contention is withmerit

Held= The decision appealed from was affirmed insofar as thecriminal liability of acc!sed-appellant was concerned.

+vidence proved beyond do!bt that acc!sed-appellantwas a civilian member of the CPP-*PA and was part of thegro!p that deliberately planned the /illing of the 'agasons. The

events that led to the victims deaths also showed that the gro!pmembers deliberately planned, plotted and premeditated theirvictims deaths. +vident premeditation e3ists when thee3ec!tion of the criminal act was preceded by cool tho!ght andreflection !pon the resol!tion to carry o!t the criminal intent.There m!st be, between the reflection and e3ec!tion of thecrimes, a space of time s!fficient for the offender to arrive at acalm D!dgment.

&t was also held that the prosec!tion had clearly andconvincingly established the e3istence of a conspiracy in the

planning and e3ec!tion of the crimes. Conspiracy arises at thevery instant the plotters agree, e3pressly or impliedly, to committhe felony and forthwith to act!ally p!rs!e it. &t hardly mattersthat the acc!sed-appellant was not act!ally present at thespecific place of the shooting. He was at the waiting shed b!t

this was for the p!rpose of providing sec!rity to those whocarried o!t the shooting. The waiting shed was located along theway to the 'agasons ho!se, strategically at the entrance to ande3it from it. A conspiracy, once established, ma/es each of theconspirators liable for the acts of the others. All conspirators areliable as co-principals regardless of the e3tent of their

participation beca!se in the contemplation of law, the act of oneis the act of all.

14. PEOPLE VS. TRINI$A$

1'9 SCRA 1 (199)

*at!re= APP+A' from the D!dgment of the Regional Trial Co!rtof "ay!gan, Ag!san del !r, "r. I, convicting the acc!sed oftwo co!nts of m!rder and fr!strated m!rder.

>acts= The deceased victim, 'olito oriano, was a fish dealer based in )avao City. His helpers were Ricardo Tan, a driver,and the other deceased victim Marcial 'aroa. n #$ an!ary#$%?, !sing a >ord >iera, they arrived at "!t!an City to sell fish.&n the morning of 2@ an!ary #$%? oriano together with 'aroaand a helper of one am!el Comendador left for "!enavista.Tan was left behind in "!t!an b!t followed to later in themorning.0hile at "!enavista, acc!sed +meliano Trinidad, a member ofthe &ntegrated *ational Police, assigned at *asipit Policetation, and residing at "aan, "!t!an City, as/ed for a ride to"ay!gan, Ag!san del !r, which is on the way to )avao City.He was in !niform and had two firearms, a carbine, and theother, a side-arm .?% caliber revolver. The fo!r left "!t!an on 2@an!ary #$%? at abo!t =2@ P.M. bo!nd for )avao City. Tan was

driving, seated to his right were oriano, then 'aroa and theacc!sed. 0hen they reached the stretch between +l Rio andAfga, the police advised them to drive slowly beca!se,according to him, the place was dangero!s. All of a s!dden, Tanheard two g!nshots. oriano and 'aroa sl!mped dead. He didnot act!ally see the shooting of 'aroa b!t he witnessed theshooting of oriano, having been alerted by the so!nd of the firstg!nfire. "oth were hit on the head. The acc!sed had !sed hiscarbine in /illing the two victims.Ricardo h!rriedly got off the >iera, ran towards the direction of"!t!an City and hid himself in the b!shes. He heard a shot

emanating from the >iera while he was hiding in the b!shes,then a passenger Deep passed by, he hailed it and rode on thefront seat. However, after sometime, he noticed that the acc!sed-appellant was seated at the bac/. Apparently noticing him aswell, the acc!sed ordered him to get o!t and to approach him.&nstead of following, Tan moved bac/ward and ran aro!nd the

Deep followed by the appellant. 0hen the Deep started to driveaway, Ricardo cl!ng to its side. The acc!sed fired two shots, oneof which hit Tan on his right thigh. As another passenger Deep

passed by, he D!mped from the first Deep and ran to the second.However, the passengers in the latter Deep told him to get o!t notwanting to get involved in the affray. P!shed o!t, Ricardocrawled !ntil a member of the P.C. chanced !pon him andhelped him board a b!s for "!t!an City. Trinidad was convictedfor the m!rder of 'aroa and oriano and for the fr!stratedm!rder of Ricardo.

&ss!e= 0 o * the acc!sed the attac/ on Tan constit!tes fr!stratedor attempted m!rder.

Held= )ecision modified. Trinidad was fo!nd g!ilty of the twom!rders and attempted m!rder.

The defense is correct in contending that in the >r!stratedM!rder case, TR&*&)A) can only be convicted of AttemptedM!rder. He had commenced the commission of the felonydirectly by overt acts b!t was !nable to perform all the acts ofe3ec!tion which wo!ld have prod!ced it by reason of ca!sesother than his spontaneo!s desistance, s!ch as, that the Deep towhich TA* was clinging was in motion, and there was a sparetire which shielded the other parts of his body. Moreover, thewo!nd on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal r!le is thatwhere the wo!nd inflicted on the victim is not s!fficient to ca!sehis death, the crime is only attempted M!rder, the acc!sed nothaving performed all the acts of e3ec!tion that wo!ld have

bro!ght abo!t death.

1. PEOPLE VS. VELASCO

7& SCRA 74 (197')

Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Co!rt

Fact: n *ov. 2, #$6I, the offended party, +stelita 'ope5, fiveyears old, accompanied by her co!sin *enita 'ope5, was at the

*orth Cemetery, Manila. The defendant, Ricardo elasco,called them, gave *enita a five-centavo coin and as/ed her to

b!y cigarettes for him. After she left, the acc!sed held +stelita by the hand and bro!ght her to an alley. nce in a hidden place between the tombs, he /issed her on the lips, too/ off her pantiesand placed himself on top of the girl while she was lying downon the gro!nd face !p and tried to insert his se3!al organ intothat of the victim. The girl sho!ted in pain, 7Aray, arayS8

Arsenio Pere5, who happened to see the acc!sed

holding the hand of the girl while wal/ing along 21 th street in thecemetery as well as when they t!rned into the alley and who atfirst tho!ght that the acc!sed was a relative of the girl, !ponhearing the sho!ts of the girl and beca!se of the sho!ts believedthat something bad was being done to the girl, proceeded to the

place where the sho!ts came and !pon standing on top of one ofthe tombs he saw, a short distance away, the acc!sed on top ofthe girl, with his pants and drawers lowered down to his /nees,and the dress of the girl raised !p and the b!ttoc/s of theacc!sed ma/ing !pward and downward movements. He tried tosee/ for help and !pon seeing ose Castro on the 21th street toldhim, 7Mang Pepe, Mang Pepe, the da!ghter of Mang Pidiong is

being rapedS8 Castro proceeded to the place pointed by Pere5with the latter following him, and while standing on top of atomb, a short distance away, Castro saw the defendant on top of

the girl.The acc!sed then stood !p and raised his pants while

the girl rose from the gro!nd crying. Castro approached thedefendant and the girl and as/ed him what happened, and hesaid the girl lost her way and was crying. The girl was bleedingat the same time and he noticed that she even wiped off with herdress the blood on the front part of her thighs.

Iue: 0hether or not the acc!sed is g!ilty of cons!mmatedrape


6/36

Ru"/*?: The decision of the lower co!rt finding the acc!sedg!ilty of the crime of cons!mmated rape was affirmed.

There was no !estion that rape was the crimecommitted, b!t beca!se of the tender age of the victim,

penetration was impossible d!e to the infantile character of thevagina. However, considering the anatomical position of thelabia maDora and minora, that these two e3ternal parts of thefemale se3!al organ cover the hymen and the vaginal openingand, therefore, in order to r!pt!re the hymen and prod!ce the

medico-legal finding that the 7vaginal opening was painf!l andsensitive to to!ch.8 The concl!sion was inevitable that these3!al organ of the acc!sed m!st have entered and had passedthe labia maDora.

1'. %R;ANO VS. IAC

17 SCRA 1 (199)

Nature: This is a petition to review the decision of the then&ntermediate Appellate Co!rt which affirmed the decision of theCirc!it Criminal Co!rt of )ag!pan City finding petitioner>ilomeno Frbano g!ilty beyond reasonable do!bt of the crimeof homicide.

Iue: 0hether or not there was an efficient intervening ca!sefrom the time avier was wo!nded !ntil his death which wo!lde3c!lpate Frbano from any liability for aviers death.

Fact: :#; At abo!t %=@@ocloc/ in the morning of ctober 2?,#$%@, petitioner >ilomeno Frbano went to his rice field at"arangay Anonang, an >abian, Pangasinan located at #@@meters from the tobacco seedbed of Marcelo avier . He fo!ndthe place where he stored his palay flooded with water comingfrom the irrigation canal nearby which had overflowed. Frbanowent to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happenedand there he saw Marcelo avier and +milio +rfe c!tting grass.He as/ed them who was responsible for the opening of theirrigation canal and avier admitted that he was the one. Frbanothen got angry and demanded that avier pay for his soa/ed

palay. A !arrel between them ens!ed. Frbano !nsheathed his bolo :abo!t 2 feet long, incl!ding the handle, by 2 inches wide;and hac/ed avier hitting him on the right palm of his hand,which was !sed in parrying the bolo hac/. avier who was then!narmed ran away from Frbano b!t was overta/en by Frbanowho hac/ed him again hitting avier on the left leg with the bac/

portion of said bolo, ca!sing a swelling on said leg. 0henFrbano tried to hac/ and inflict f!rther inD!ry, his da!ghterembraced and prevented him fro hac/ing avier.:2; Fpon the intercession of Co!ncilman olis, Frbano andavier agreed to settle their differences. Frbano promised to payPhp I@@.@@ for the medical e3penses of avier. Hence, onctober 2I, #$%@, the two accompanied by olis appeared

before the an >abian Police to formali5e their amicablesettlement.

:?; However, at abo!t #=?@ a.m. on *ovember ##, #$%@ avier asr!shed to the *a5areth 4eneral Hospital in very serio!scondition. 0hen admitted to the hospital avier loc/Daw and washaving conv!lsion )r. +dm!ndo +3conde who personallyattended to avier fo!nd the latters serio!s condition wasca!sed by tetan!s to3in. +h noticed the presence of a hearingwo!nd in aviers palm which co!ld have been infected bytetan!s.:1; &n an information dated April #@, #$%# >ilomeno Frbanowas charged with crime of homicide before the then Circ!itCo!rt of )ag!pan City, Third !dicial )istrict. Fpon agreement,Frbano pleaded 7not g!ilty.8 After trial, the trial co!rt fo!ndFrbano g!ilty as charged. 0e was sentenced to s!ffer anindeterminate prison term of twelve :#2; years of prision mayor,as minim!m to seventeen :#I; years., fo!r :1; months and one

:#; day of recl!sion temporal, as ma3im!m, together with theaccessories of the law to indemnify the heirs of the victim,Marcelo avier, in the amo!nt of Php #2,@@@.@@ witho!ts!bsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay thecosts. He was ordered confined at the *ew "ilibid Prison, inM!ntinl!pa, Ri5al !pon finality of the decision, in view of thenat!re of his penalty. The then &ntermediate Appellate Co!rtaffirmed the conviction of Frbano on appeal b!t raised theaward of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to Php?@,@@@.@@ with cost against the appellant. The appellant filed amotion for reconsideration and


7/36

Rat/0*a"e: :a; Art. 21I of the RPC apply in the instant case.There is no !estion that the acc!sed s!rprised his wife and her

paramo!r, the vac!!m in this case, in the act of illicit cop!lation,as, a res!lt of which he went o!t to /ill the deceased in a fit of

passionate o!tb!rst. Article 21I prescribes the followingelements= :#; that a legally married person s!rprises his spo!sein the act of committing se3!al interco!rse with another person,and :2; that he /ills any of them or both of them in the act or

immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.The trail co!rt, in convicting the acc!sed-appellant of m!rder,therefore erred. :b; Article 21I, or the e3ceptionalcirc!mstances mentioned therein, amo!nt to an e3emptingcirc!mstances mentioned therein, amo!nt to an e3emptingcirc!mstance, for even where death or serio!s physical inD!riesis inflicted, the penalty is so greatly lowered as to res!lt to no

p!nishment at all. :c; Article 21I of the Revised Penal code doesnot define and provide for specific crime, b!t grants a privilegeor benefit to the acc!sed for the /illing of another or theinfliction of serio!s physical inD!ries !nder the circ!mstances.P!nishment conse!ently is not inflicted !pon the acc!sed. He is

banished, b!t that is intended for his protection. :d; The ne3t!estion refers to the liability of the acc!sed-appellant for the

physical inD!ries s!ffered by 'ina Amparado and ArnoldAmparado who were ca!ght in the crossfire as the acc!sed-appellant shot the victim. The olicitor 4eneral recommends afinding of do!ble fr!strated m!rder against the acc!sed-appellant and being the more severe offense, proposes theimposition of recl!sion perpet!a in its ma3im!m periods

p!rs!ant to Article 1% of the Revised Penal Code. This where wedisagree. The acc!sed-appellant did not have the intent to /illthe Amparado co!ple. Altho!gh as a r!le, one committing asoffense is liable for all the conse!ences of his act, that r!le

pres!pposes that the act done amo!nts to a felony. Here, theacc!sed-appellant was not committing m!rder when hedischarges his rifle !pon the deceased. &nflicting death !ndere3ceptional circ!mstances is not m!rder.

1. PEOPLE VS. A;AGON1'1 SCRA 2 (19)

Nature: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC, whichfo!nd the acc!sed g!ilty of the crime m!rder.

Iue: Acc!sed-appellant, thr! their co!nsel, raise the followingassignments of error= :i; The Honorable Regional Trial Co!rterred in finding that the prosec!tions evidence consisting of thetestimony of its witnesses s!fficiently established the g!ilt

beyond reasonable do!bt of the acc!sed for the /illing of onesCelis '!pango, which /illing was !alified to m!rder bytreachery, :ii; The Honorable Regional Trial Co!rt erred inholding that the defense of alibi on the part of the acc!sed MateoAbagon and of self-defense on the part of Abner ngonion will

no lie, :iii; The Honorable Trial co!rt erred in declaring thatconspiracy had been s!fficiently established, and :iv; TheHonorable Regional Trial Co!rt erred in finding both acc!sedg!ilty of the crime of m!rder considering that their g!ilt werenot established beyond reasonable do!bt.

Fact: :#; Abo!t 6=@@ ocloc/ in the afternoon of April #I,#$%#, at "arangay Pinamar!b!han, Mobo, Masbate, while theherein victim Celis '!pango and companions &sabelo Rada5a,r., "enDamin "ergado and *ilo 'alag!na were inside the storeof Cora5on Cana to celebrate the birthday of &sabelo Rada5a, r.,two persons, later identified as Mateo Abagon and Abnerngonion, entered and stabbed Celis '!pango. >irst to enter wasAbner ngonion, followed closely behind Mateo Abagon, andwith a si3-inches do!ble bladed /nife stabbed Celis '!pango

three or fo!r times. Mateo Abagon, in t!rn, with a seven-inch/nife also stabbed Celis '!pango Useveral times.:2; After Celis '!pango fell to the gro!nd the two acc!sed left.At this point Terisito '!pango, brother of Celis '!pango,arrived and he carried Celis '!pango, with the help of "enDamin"ergado and *ilo 'alag!na whom he fo!nd inside the store,o!tside the store intending to bring him to the hospital. !tsidethe store, the waiting Abner ngonion, who was with MateoAbagon, !lio ngonion, AleDandro ngonion, Rom!lo"arr!ga, Antonio )anao and Arnel narosa, he drew his firearmand fire two shots at them. Fpon being fire at, "enDamin

"ergado and *ilo 'alag!na ran away while Teresito '!pangoso!ght cover. Abner ngonion and his companions approachedand they too/ t!rns in stabbing the prostate body of Celis'!pango with bolos and /nives. Terisito event!ally able toreport the incident.:?; 7The ca!se of death was established to be shoc/, secondaryto massive e3ternal. Hemorrhage ca!sed by m!ltiple stabs andincised wo!nds.8 Testifying, )r. !emi admitted the possibilitythat the wo!nds were afflicted the possibility that the wo!nds

were inflicted by one or two assailants.:1; 7The defense presented both acc!sed to deny the charges.7>or his defense, acc!sed Mateo Abagon claims that at the timeof the incident he was in his ho!se at the seashore ofPinamar!b!han abo!t #@@ meters away from the scene of theincident. He went o!t of the ho!se only he learned of thestabbing incident when he saw many persons r!nning towardsthe scene. After seeing the lifeless body of the victim, heret!rned home immediately. He did not see his co-acc!sedAbner ngonion at the scene. &n fact he did not see any other

person there. 7n the other hand, acc!sed Abner ngonionclaims that at that partic!lar time he left his ho!se to fetch hismother at the T!gbo River where she washed clothes. n hisway he passed by the store of Cora5on Cana to b!y cigarettes.

At the store he was p!lled inside by Celis '!pango, where thelatter was drin/ing with others, among who was !ne Rada5a.He was as/ed to drin/ b!t he ref!sed beca!se of a headache.Celis then as/ed him 7why are yo! brave8 and then he p!lled his/nife, b!t at as he did so the /nife b!mped the edge of the tableand fell to the gro!nd. As Celis recovered the /nife from thegro!nd, ngonion was able to get hold of Celis hand and theygrappled for the /nife. 0hile grappling he s!cceeded inthr!sting the /nife to the left breast of Celis and again thr!st it tothe stomach. After he was able to get possession of the /nife he/ept on stabbing Celis, being by then angry. &n the meantime, asthey grappled, the companions of Celis '!pango D!mped o!t ofthe window, while !ne Rada5a who was there watching ranaway when he saw Celis was stabbed. +h then went o!t and

proceeded to the PC Head!arters at Masbate and s!rrendered.

"enDamin "ergado and Teresito '!pango were not seen by himin the store. He then stated that his co-acc!sed Mateo Abagonwas in the store.

Ru"/*?: 0herefore the D!dgment appealed from is affirmede3cept that the penalties are modified. Appellant Mateo Abagonis sentenced to s!ffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonmentfrom twelve years and one day of prision mayor as minim!m toeighteen years, eight months, and one day of recl!sion temporalas ma3im!m. Appellant Abner ngonion is sentenced to s!fferan indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from ten years andone day of prision mayor as minim!m to seventeen years, fo!rmoths and one day of recl!sion temporal as ma3im!m. The twoacc!sed-appellants shall pay Dointly the amo!nt of, thirtytho!sand pesos to the heirs of Celis '!pango as indemnity

Rat/0*a"e: :i; Appellant ngonions theory of self-defense is!ntenable. According to the testimonies of "ergado, Rada5a,and '!pango, the attac/ by the assailant was !nprovo/ed. Thes!dden attac/ on the victim with /nives drawn indicates that thestabbing was !nintentional. *o other concl!sion can li/ewise bes!rmised from their g!nshots fired by the assailants at those whotried to bring Celis to the hospital, while the victims body layhelpless iVon the street, the appellants /ept on stabbing thevictim, thereby ens!ring his death. :ii; Having admitted the/illing ngonion m!st clearly establish that he acted in self-defense, the b!rden of proof is now shifted to him, he m!st,therefore, rely on the strength of his own evidence and not onthe wea/ness of the prosec!tion :People vs. andie, #1$ CRA21@G and People vs. Reg!lacion; for even if the latters evidence

is wea/, it co!ld not be disbelieved after the appellant admittedthe /illing. The n!mber and nat!re of the stab wo!nds inflicted

by more than one person beloved ngonions theory of self-defense. These and the testimonies of two eyewitnesses and one

peace officer f!rther serve to destroy ngonions statement.Moreover it is a well settled r!le that the findings of the fact ofthe trial co!rt on the credibility of witnesses are generallyaccorded the highest respect by the appellee co!rt :People vs.Traya, #1I CRA ?%#; for these co!rts have the privileges ofe3amining the deportment and demeanor of witnesses, andtherefore, can discern if s!ch witnesses, and therefore, can

I


8/36

discern if s!ch witnesses are telling the tr!th or not :People vs.Ramilo, #1I CRA #@2;. :iii; ngonions claim of self-defenseis li/ewise negated by the physical evidence and othercirc!mstances, s!ch as his fail!re to present the /nife !pons!rrender, his fail!re to tell the police a!thorities that he /illedthe deceased in self-defense and the absence of any inD!ry on the

body of ngonion while the deceased s!ffered eleven wo!ndswhen, according to the appellant, there was s!pposedly astr!ggle that tool place. >or self-defense to prosper, the

following elements sho!ld have been proven by appellant= :a;!nlawf!l aggression, :b; reasonable necessity of the meansemployed to prevent or repel itG and :c; lac/ of provocation onthe part of the one defending himself. n the contrary, all theevidence on record shows that not one of the elements of self-defense is present. :iv; Appellant Abagaons defense on theother hand, is alibi, an inherently wea/ defense especially whenit can be proved that it was not physically impossible for him to

be at the scene of the crime. &n order to be given f!ll faith andcredit, alibi m!st not leave any room for do!bt as to its

pla!sibility and veracity. The appellant at the time of the crimewas allegedly in a place which appro3imately only #@@ metersaway from the scene of the crime, renders his defense of alibinot credible. :v; More important, Abagon and his companion

were positively identifies by eyewitnesses "ergado and'alag!na. The records show that the appellants too/ t!rns atstabbing the victim inside and o!tside the store. The presenceand location of the eleven stab wo!nds, as testified by )r.!emi also indicate that the same were inflicted by more thanone person. :vi; The assailants acted in concerted efforts withcomm!nity of criminal p!rpose to ens!re the death of the victimis indicative of conspiracy between them. Conspiracy isestablished by concerted action &t may be noted that even ifconspiracy had not been established, the liability of the twoappellants wo!ld not change for each inflicted on his own,m!ltiple stabbing blows on the victim res!lting in mortalinD!ries. They acted as principals by direct participation. :vii;Treachery was li/ewise proven by the evidence presented. Theattac/ was immediate, s!dden and !ne3pected. Treachery e3ists

when the offender commits any crime against person, employingmeans, methods or forms in the e3ec!tion, witho!t ris/ to himarising from any defense which the offended party might ma/e.

19. PEOPLE VS. IGNACIO

G.R. NO. 1&4'& (FE;. 2>>>)

Nature: Appeal on the May #%, #$$% decision of the RegionalTrial Co!rt of Masbate, Masbate, convicting +!logio &gnacio ofm!rder

Fact: n an!ary ##, #$$I :morning; in "arangay )ivisoria,M!nicipality of )imasalang, Masbate, essie 'acson and +dwinelasco were gathering shells from the seashore. They gotthirsty, went to the fishpond and get cocon!ts or 7b!tong8. The

fishpond is owned by Cielo Cortes alias 7Malagring8. +!logio&gnacio, 7'oloy8, is the careta/er, which stays at the ho!seinside the fishpond. essie then got # cocon!t, wal/ed ahead of+dwin in going to the di/e, to brea/ open the cocon!t. +!logiosaw essie as essie reached the di/e, he did not see +dwinwal/ing behind essie. W+!logio as/ed essie to p!t down theyo!ng cocon!t. essie did. +!logio fired his homemade shotg!nat essie hitting the left portion of his breast. +!logio was metersaway fro, essie. +dwin was meters away. +!logio cran/ed hishomemade shotg!n aimed it at +dwin b!t did not fire. +dwinwent to essies parents, then to Carlit Alcove, the "aragaTanned. Carlit as/ed +!logio to s!rrender which he did.ersion of the )efense= +!logio acted on the defense of

property. n an!ary $, #$$I, he was informed by his neighbor,4il Aristotles regarding a theft incident in the fishpond. n

an!ary ##, #$$I, he saw essie and +dwin coming o!t of hisho!se carrying a bas/et his ho!se was filled with 2% crabs.Fpon seeing +!logio, essie and +dwin fled. He ordered them tostopG they did not, so he fired his g!n :witho!t intention to /illthem;. He then reported incident to Nalawao 4il Aristotles.

Ru"/*?: There was no legal reason for him to shoot the victim,an !narmed minorG /illing was !alified as m!rder beca!se ofthe presence of treachery.

Iue:

#st iss!e= +vidence of appellants g!ilt>or Dstifyi%ng circ!mstances to be appreciated, the

acc!sed has the b!rden of proving !nlawf!l aggression on the

part the victim. +!logio was not attac/ed by essie.

2nd iss!e= TreacheryA /illing is !alified as treachery when the acc!sed

employs means witho!t ris/ to him arising from the defensewhich the offended party might ma/e.

-ictim and companion stopped after+!logio sho!ted at them

- essie was already facing him when heshot him

- There was no proof that he7deliberately and conscio!sly adoptedany means to /ill8 L did not act onmere imp!lse

?rd iss!e= Mitigating Circ!mstanceMitigating circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender

beca!se he allegedly gave himself !pK

Mitigating Circ!mstance=

#. offender has not been act!ally arrested2. offender s!rrender himself to a personof a!thority

?. s!rrender is vol!ntary

V*o mitigating circ!mstance L he forced to give himself !p

Main iss!e= 0hether +!logio acted in !nlawf!l defense of thelandowners property.

!e"#: Appeal is denied, assailed decision is affirmed.

2>. PEOPLE VS. RICO!ERMOSO

' SCRA 4&1 (1974)

Nature: evero Padernal and !an Padernal appealed from thedecision of the Circ!it Criminal Co!rt at '!cena City,convicting them of m!rder, sentencing each of them to recl!sion

perpet!a and ordering them to pay solitarily the s!m of twelvetho!sand pesos to the heirs pf 4eminiano de 'eon ad to pay thecosts :Criminal Case *o. CCC-&X-?I- !e5on or #$22-C>&-4!maca;.&n the same decision they were convicted of lesions levees. +achone was sentences to s!ffer the penalty of fifteen :# days ofarresto manor and to pay the costs. Rosendo Perpe9an, RitoMonterey and Macario Monterey were ac!itted :Criminal Case

*o. CCC-&X-?%- !e5on or #$2?-C>&-4!maca;.

Iue: The only iss!e in this appeal, which concerns !anPadernal, is whether he conspired with Ricohermoso and evero

Padernal to /ill 4eminiano de 'eon.

Fact: #. At abo!t nine ocloc/ in the morning of

an!ary ?@, #$6 4eminiano de 'eon, togetherwith his thirty-three-year old common-lawwife >abian Rosales, his twenty year old sonMarian to de 'eon and one Ri5al Rosales,enco!ntered Poi Ricohermoso in "arrioTagabawa ilage, Catamaran, !e5on.

2. 4eminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso c!ltivated as/ingpin. 4eminiano as/ed Ricohermoso abo!this share of the palay harvest. He added that hesho!ld at least be allowed to taste the palayharvested from his land. Ricohermosoanswered that 4eminiano co!ld go to his ho!seanytime and he wo!ld give the latter palay.4eminiano reDoined that he co!ld not get the

palay that morning beca!se he was on his wayto "arrio "ag basin b!t, on his ret!rn, hewo!ld stop at Ricohermoso ho!se and get the

palay.?. 0hen 4eminiano ret!rned to "arrio Tagabawa

ilage, he stopped at Ricohermoso place. &twas abo!t two ocloc/ in the afternoon.

%


9/36

4eminiano sat on a sac/ beside >abian Rosalesin front of the ho!se while Marian to stoodabo!t three meters behind his father.Ricohermoso stood near the door of his ho!sewhile evero Padernal was stationed near theeaves of the ho!se.

1. 4eminiano as/ed Ricohermoso abo!t the palay. The latter, no longer conciliatory andevidently hostile, answered in a defiant tone=

70hatever happens, & will not give yo! palay.84eminiano restated= 70hy did yo! tell !s to

pass by yo!r ho!se, yo! were not willing togive the palayK8

. At that D!nct!re, as if by pre-arrangement,Ricohermoso !nsheathed his bolo andapproached 4eminiano from the left, whileevero Padernal :Ricohermoso father-in-law;got an a3e and approached and approached4eminiano from the right. The latter loo/ed !pto the se3agenarian evero Padernal, with bothhands raised and pleaded= 7Mama :grandpa;,why will yo! do this to !s. 0e will not fightyo!.8 0hile 4eminiano was still loo/ing !p to

evero Padernal on his right, Ricohermosowal/ed to 4!ineans left, and, when abo!t onemeter from him ,stabbed him on the nic/ withhis bolo. 4eminiano fell face downward on thegro!nd. 0hile in that helpless position, he washac/ed on the bac/ with an a3e by everoPadernal.

6. At the same place and time, while everoPadernal and Ricohermoso were assa!lting4eminiano de 'eon, another episode wasta/ing place. !an Padernal :Ricohermosos

brother-in-law and the son of evero; s!ddenlyembraced Marianito de 'eon from behind ,with his right armed loc/ed aro!ndMarionettes nec/ and his left hand pressing

Marionettes left forearm. They grappled androlled downhill towards a camote patch.Marianito passed o!t. 0hen he regainedconscio!sness, his rifle was gone. He wal/ed!phill, saw his mortally wo!nded father4eminiano in his death those, and embracedhim, He carried 4eminiano for a shortdistance. The fifty-one year old 4eminianodied at two ocloc/ on that sane day.

I. )octor Mat!ndan said that the first wo!nd wasfatal. &t co!ld have ca!sed instantaneo!s death

beca!se it was a deep wo!nd which pierced thecarotoid artery and D!g!lar vain. The secondwo!nd on the bac/ co!ld li/ewise have ca!sedthe victims death if it had penetrated the

/idney.%. )octor Mat!ndan fo!nd that Marianito de

'eon s!stained m!ltiple abrasions on the nic/and abdomen and a lacerated wo!nd on the leftfoot which wo!ld heal from one to nine dayseven witho!t medical treatment.

$. Appellants version is that in the afternoon ofan!ary ?@, #$6, when Ricohermoso ref!sedto give any palay to 4eminiano de 'eon,

beca!se the land tilled by the former asallegedly a p!blic land, 4eminiano approachedRicohermoso. 0hen 4eminiano !nsheathedhis bolo, Ricohermoso met him drew his boloand str!c/ 4eminiano on the left side of thenec/. The latter tried to parry the blow. He was

wo!nded in the wrist. As 4eminiano t!rnedright to flee, Ricohermoso str!c/ him again onthe left side of the body, ca!sing him to fall onthe gro!nd. 4eminiano died on the spot d!e tothe bleeding from the wo!nd on his nec/.0hile 4eminiano was being assa!lted, his sonMarianito tried to shoot with his rifle b!t !anPadernal disabled him and wrested the g!n.Marianito s!ffered abrasions on the nec/ andother parts of the body.

#@. The appellants filed their brief on >ebr!ary 6,#$I@. 'ater, evero Padernal withdrew hisappeal

Ru"/*?: 0herefore, the D!dgment of the lower co!rt as toappellant !an Padernal is affirmed with costs against him.

Rat/0*a"e:

• The trial co!rt rationali5ed its concl!sion that therewas conspiracy by stating that their cond!ct revealed!nity of p!rpose and a concerted effort to encompass4eminiano death.

• Appellant !an Padernal invo/es the D!stifyingcirc!mstance of avoidance of a greater evil or inD!ry ine3plaining his act of preventing Marianito de 'eonfrom shooting Ricohermoso and evero Padernal. Hisreliance on that D!stifying circ!mstance is erroneo!s.The act of !an Padernal in preventing Marianito de'eon from shooting Ricohermoso and everoPadernal, who were the aggressors, was designed toins!re the /illing of 4eminiano de 'eon witho!t anyris/ to his assailants.

• !an Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he

so!ght to disable Marianito. Adrenals malicio!sintention was to forestall any interference in thefelonio!s assa!lt made by his father and brother-in-law on 4eminiano. That sit!ation is !narg!ably notthe case envisaged in paragraph 1 of article ##.

• &t sho!ld be recalled that, in the morning, 4eminianohad an !nderstanding with Ricohermoso that he wo!ldret!rn in the afternoon to get his share of the palayharvest Ricohermoso gave 4eminiano the impressionthat he was amenable to giving 4eminiano his share ofthe harvest. However, d!ring the interval,Ricohermoso changed his mind. &nstead of remainingsteadfast to his original intention to give 4eminiano

palay, Ricohermoso planned with his father in law,evero Padernal, the manner of li!idating )emonian

so as to stop him from pestering Ricohermoso withdemands for a share in the harvest. o, when4eminiano reappeared at Ricohermosos place in theafternoon, evero Padernal, Ricohermoso, !anPadernal, li/e actors in a well L rehearsed play,

performed their assigned roles with dramatic positions. evero Padernal and Ricohermoso, onearmed with an a3e and the other with a bolo, in a

pincer movement, confronted 4eminiano de 'eon.im!ltaneo!sly with that mane!ver, the ? year old!an Padernal embraces Marianito de 'eon and

prevented him from firing at evero Padernal andRicohermoso or from helping his father.

• Considering the trios behavior and appellant !anAdrenals close relationship to Ricohermoso andevero Padernal inel!ctable concl!sion is that he actedin conspiracy with them. The circ!mstancess!rro!nding the /illing of 4eminiano de 'eon alevosiaand treachery. His hands were raised and he was

pleading for mercy with evero Padernal, whenRicohermoso str!c/ him on the nec/ with a bolo.

21. PEOPLE VS. ;ERONILLA

9' P!IL '' (19)

Nature: This is an appeal by acc!sed Man!el "eronilla,Policarpio Pac!ldo, >ilipino elasco, and acinto Adriatico fromthe D!dgment of the Co!rt of >irst &nstance of Abra :CriminalCase *o. I@; convicting them of m!rder for the e3ec!tion of

Arsenio "orDal in the evening of April #%, #$1, in the town of'a Pa5 , Province of Abra.Fact: Arsenio "orDal was the elected mayor of 'a Pa5, Abra, atthe o!tbrea/ of war, and contin!ed to serve as Mayor d!ring theapanese occ!pation, !ntil March #@, #$1?, when he moved to"ang!ed beca!se of an attempt !pon his life by !n/nown

persons. n )ecember #%, #$11, appellant Man!el "eronillawas appointed Military Mayor of 'a Pa5 by 't. Col. R. H.Arnold, regimental commander of the #th &nfantry, PhilippineArmy, operating as a g!errilla !nit in the province of Abra.im!ltaneo!sly with his appointment as Military Mayor,

$


10/36

"eronilla received copy of a memorand!m iss!ed by 't. Col.Arnold to all Military Mayors in *orthern '!5on, a!thori5ingthem Eto appoint a D!ry of #2 bolomen to try persons acc!sed oftreason, espionage, or the aiding and abetting :of ; the enemyE:+3hibit $;. He also received from the Head!arters of the #th&nfantry a list of all p!ppet government officials of the provinceof Abra :which incl!ded Arsenio "orDal, p!ppet mayor of 'aPa5;, with a memorand!m instr!cting all Military Mayors toinvestigate said persons and gather against them complaints

from people of the m!nicipality for collaboration with theenemy :+3hibit #2-a;.ometime in March, #$1, while the operations for theliberation of the province of Abra were in progress, Arsenio"orDal ret!rned to 'a Pa5 with his family in order to escape the

bombing of "ang!ed. "eronilla, p!rs!ant to his instr!ctions, placed "orDal !nder c!stody and as/ed the residents of 'a Pa5 tofile complaints against him. &n no time, charges of espionage,aiding the enemy, and ab!se of a!thority were filed against"orDalG a #2-man D!ry was appointed by "eronilla, composed ofes!s 'ab!g!en as chairman, and "enDamin Adriatico, AndresAfos, !anito Casal, antiago Casal, "enDamin Abella,ervillano Afos, Mariano ADel, >elimon 'ab!g!en, >eli3M!rphy, Pedro T!r!e5a, and )elfin 'ab!g!en as membersG

while >eli3 Alverne and !an "almaceda were named prosec!tors, Policarpio Pac!ldo as cler/ of the D!ry, and 'ino&novermo as co!nsel for the acc!sed. 'ater, Atty. ovito"arreras vol!ntarily appeared and served as co!nsel for "orDal.gt. +steban Cabanos observed the proceedings for several days!pon instr!ctions of Head!arters, #th &nfantry. The trial lasted#$ days !p to April #@, #$1G the D!ry fo!nd "orDal g!ilty on allacco!nts and imposed !pon him instr!ction from his s!periors.Mayor "eronilla forwarded the records of the case to theHead!arters of the #th &nfantry for review and on the night ofthe same day, April #%, #$1, "eronilla ordered the e3ec!tion of"orDal. acinto Adriatco acted as e3ec!tioner and AnotnioPalope as grave digger.Two years thereafter, Man!el "eronilla as military mayor,Policarpio Pac!ldo as Cler/ of the D!ry, >eli3 Alverne and !an

"almaceda as prosec!tors, es!s 'ab!g!en, )elfin 'ab!g!en,>ilemon 'ab!g!en, ervillano Afos, Andres Afos, "enDaminAdriatico, !anito Casel, antiago Casel, Mariano ADel, >eli3M!rphy, "enDamin Abella, and Pedro T!r!e5a as members ofthe D!ry, acinto Adriatico as e3ec!tioner, evero Afos as gravedigger, and >ather >ilipino elasco as an alleged conspirator,were indicted in the Co!rt of >irst &nstance of Abra for m!rder,for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the e3ec!tion ofArsenio "orDal. oon thereafter, the late President Man!el A.Ro3as iss!ed +3ec!tive Proclamation *o. %, granting amnesty toall persons who committed acts penali5ed !nder the RevisedPenal Code in f!rtherance of the resistance to the enemy against

persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. )efendant es!s'ab!g!en, then a master sergeant in the Philippine Army,applied for and was granted amnesty by the Amnesty

Commission, Armed >orces of the Philippines :Records, pp.6#%-2@;. The rest of the defendant filed their application foramnesty with the econd 4!errilla Amnesty Commission, whodenied their application on the gro!nd that the crime had beeninspired by p!rely personal motives, and remanded the case tothe Co!rt of >irst &nstance of Abra for trial on the merits.Iue: The cr!cial !estion th!s becomes whether or not thismessage, originally sent to ArnoldBs !arters in an +steban,&locos !r, was relayed by the latter to appellant "eronilla in 'aPa5, Abra, on the morning of April #%, #$1, together with the

pac/age of records of "orDalBs trial that was admittedly ret!rnedto and received by "eronilla on that date, after review thereof byArnold :+3hibit %-%-a;. bvio!sly, if the olc/mann messagewas /nown to "eronilla, his ordering the e3ec!tion of "orDal onthe night of April #%, #$1 can not be D!stified.

Ru"/*?: The D!dgment appealed from is reversed and theappellants are ac!itted with costs de officio.

Rat/0*a"e:

• The records are ample to s!stain the claim of thedefense that the arrest, prosec!tion and trial ofthe late Arsenio "orDal were done p!rs!ant toe3press orders of the #th &nfantry Head!arters.:+3hibit $ and #2-a;, instr!cting all militarymayors !nder its D!risdiction to gather evidenceagainst p!ppet officials and to appoint D!ries of at

least #2 bolomen to try the acc!sed and find themg!ilty by two thirds vote. &t is to be noted thatArsenio "orDal was specifically named in the listof civilian officials to be prosec!ted :+3hibit #2-

b;.

• &n tr!th, the prosec!tion does not serio!slydisp!te that the trial and sentencing of "orDal wasdone in accordance with instr!ctions of s!periormilitary a!thorities, altho!gh it point toirreg!larities that were d!e more to ignorance oflegal processes than personal animosity against"orDal. The state, however, predicates its case

principally on the e3istence of the radiogram+3hibit H from Col. olc/mann, overall areacommander, to 't. Col. Arnold, specificallycalling attention to the illegality of "orDalBsconviction and sentence, and which the

prosec!tion claims was /nown to the acc!sed"eronilla.

• 0e have caref!lly e3amined the evidence on thisimportant iss!e, and find no satisfactory proofthat "eronilla did act!ally receive the radiogram+3hibit H or any copy thereof. The acc!sed

ro!ndly denied it. The messenger, or Er!nnerE,Pedro Molina co!ld not state what papers wereenclosed in the pac/age he delivered to "eronillaon that morning in !estion, nor co!ld >rancisco"ay!en :or "ay/en;, who claimed to have been

present at the delivery of the message, state thecontents thereof.

• The plain import of the affidavit is that thewitness Rafael "almaceda was not with "eronillawhen the message arrived, otherwise "eronillawo!ld have given him his orders direct, as he:"almaceda; testified later at the trial. Moreover,it is diffic!lt to believe that having learned of thecontents of the olc/mann message, "almacedasho!ld not have relayed it to "orDal , or to some

member of the latterBs family, considering thatthey were relatives. &n addition to "almaceda wascontradicted by "ay/en, another prosec!tionwitness, as to the hatching of the allegedconspiracy to /ill "orDal. "almaceda claimed thatthe acc!sed-appellants decided to /ill "orDal inthe early evening of April #%, while "ay/entestified that the agreement was made abo!t tenoBcloc/ in the morning, shortly after the acc!sedhad denied "orDalBs petition to be allowed to hearmass.

• !r concl!sion is that 't. Col. Arnold, for somereason that can not now be ascertained, failed totransmit the olc/mann message to "eronilla.And this being so, the charge of criminalconspiracy to do away with "orDal m!st bereDected, beca!se the acc!sed had no need toconspire against a man who was, to their/nowledge, d!ly sentenced to death.

22. TA;%ENA VS. SAN$IGAN;A,AN

2' SCRA &&2 (1997)

Nature: This is a separate petition to review the decision of theandiganbayan dated ctober #2, #$$@ convicting them ofmalversation !nder Article 2#I of the Revised Penal Code aswell as the Resol!tion dated )ecember 2@, #$$# denyingreconsideration

? criminal cases were filed against Tab!ena who

appears as the principal acc!sed and one for Peralta sincethe total amo!nt of million pesos was ta/en on ?separate dates of an!ary, namely #@, #6, and 2$. They

were convicted of malversation !nder Article 2#I of theRevised Penal Code.

Fact:

• Then President Marcos instr!cted Tab!ena over the phone to pay directly to the Presidents office and incash what the M&AA owes the P*CC to whichTab!ena replied. 7Jes, sir. & will do it8.

#@


11/36

• n an!ary %, #$%6, one wee/ after the phoneconversation Tab!ena received from Mrs. 4imene5,the personal secretary of Pres. Marcos, a PresidentialMemorand!m reiterating in blac/ and white the verbalinstr!ction of the President.

• &n obedience to President Marcos verbal instr!ctionand Memorand!m, Tab!ena, with the help of )abaoand Peralta ca!sed the release of million pesos ofM&AA f!nds by means of ? withdrawals.

• #st withdrawal was made on an!ary #@, #$%6 for P2

million following a letter of even date signed byTab!ena and )abao re!esting the P*" e3tensionoffice at the M&AA depository branch of M&AA f!ndsto iss!e a manager chec/ for said amo!nt payable toTab!ena and was encashed at the P*" illamor"ranch. !bse!ently, the P2 million in cash wasdelivered by Tab!ena with the !se of an armored carof the P*" to the office of Mrs. 4imene5 located atAg!ado t. fronting Malacanang. There was no receiptiss!ed for the delivery of the money.

• imilar circ!mstances s!rro!nded the secondwithdrawalaith of the

petitioners relieve then from the crime ofmalversation, andG

?. 0hether the petitioners constit!tional rightsto d!e process was violated

!e"#:

#. *o. &t is stated in Cabello vs. andiganbayan 7even on p!tative ass!mption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of malversation bynegligence b!t the information was for intentionalmalversation, !nder the circ!mstances of this case hisconviction !nder the first mode of misappropriationwo!ld still be in order. Malversation is committedeither intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or theculpa present in the offense is only a modality in the

perpetration of the felony. +ven if the mode chargeddiffers from the mode proved, the same offense ofmalversation is involved and conviction thereof is

proper. Moreover, +C. R!le ##6 of the R!les ofco!rt does not re!ire that all the essential elements ofthe offense charged in the information be proved, it

being s!fficient that some of said essential elements oringredients thereof be established to constit!te thecrime proved.

2. Jes. >irstly, Marcos was !ndeniably. Tab!enass!perior and as a recipient of s!ch /ind of a directivecoming from the highest official of the land no less,4) >A&TH sho!ld be read on Tab!enascompliance, witho!t hesitation nor any !estion, with

the MARC Memorand!m. The s!perior-s!bordinate relationship was clearly established and sois the lawf!lness of the order contained in theMARC Memorand!m for its p!rpose partial

payment of the liability of one government agency:M&AA; to another :P*CC;. Tab!ena is thereforeentitled to the D!stifying circ!mstance of 7Any personwho acts in obedience to an order iss!ed by a s!periorfor some lawf!l p!rpose.8 econdly, there is nodenying that the disb!rsement did not comply withcertain a!diting r!les and reg!lations. "!t this

deviation was inevitable !nder the circ!mstancesTab!ena was in beca!se he did not have the l!3!ry oftime to observe all a!diting proced!res ofdisb!rsement considering the last that the MARCMemorand!m enDoined his 7immediate compliance8with the directive that he forwarded to the Presidentsoffice P million in cash. Tab!ena s!rely cannotescape responsibility for the emission b!t since he wasacting in good faith, his liability sho!ld only be

administrative or civil in nat!re and not criminal.Thirdly, the andiganbayan made the finding thatTab!ena had already converted and misappropriatedthe P million when he delivered the same to Mrs.4imene5 and not to the P*CC however it was statedin the memorand!m to pay immediately the P*CC,thr! his office, the s!m of million pesos and thatwas what Tab!ena precisely did when he delivered themoney to the Presidents office thr! his secretary Mrs.4imene5. Therefore, Tab!enas good faith indelivering the money to the President in strictcompliance with the memorand!m was not at allaffected even if it later t!rned o!t that P*CC neverreceived the money. >o!rthly, even ass!ming that the

real and sole p!rpose behind the MARCMemorand!m was to siphon-o!t p!blic money for personal benefit of those then in power still, nocriminal liability can be imp!ted to Tab!ena. There isno showing that he had anything to do whatsoeverwith the e3ec!tion of the MARC Memorand!m.There is also no proof that he profited from thefelonio!s scheme in short, no conspiracy wasestablished between Tab!ena and the real embe55lersof the P million. This is not a sheer case of blindand misg!ided obedience, b!t obedience in good faithof a d!ly e3ec!ted order.

?. Jes. The 7cold ne!trality of an impartial D!dge8 is anessential re!irement for d!e process beca!se it wo!ldshow that the co!rts are impartial, and !nbiased.

Moreover, the trial D!dge has the right to !estionwitness in view of satisfying his mind !pon anymaterial point which presents itself d!ring the trial o acase over which he presides b!t it is limited only to7clarifactory !estions8 only. However, the appellateco!rt, while going over the records, noticed that theway the andiganbayan actively too/ part in the!estioning of a defense witness and of the acc!sedthemselves and basing on its manner indicated

preD!dgment of g!ilt, bias, hatred, or hostility againstthe said appellants. &t wo!ld be noticed by the vol!meof !estions h!rled by the andiganbayan and moreimportantly, it is noticed that the !estions were in thenat!re of cross-e3aminations characteristic ofconfrontation, probing, and insin!ation.

$ec//0*: 0H+R+>R+, in view of the foregoing herein petitioners '!is A. Tab!ena and Adolfo M. Peralta are herebyACF&TT+) of the crime of malversation as defined and

penali5ed !nder Article 2#I of the Revised Penal Code Theandiganbayan )ecision of ctober #2, #$$@ and theResol!tion dated )ecember 2@, #$$# are R++R+) and +TA&)+.

2&. PEOPLE VS. P%NO

1> SCRA 11 (1991)

Nature: A!tomatic Review from the decision of Circ!itCriminal Co!rt of Pas!g, Ri5al.

FACTS:

At abo!t two ocloc/ in the afternoon of eptember %, #$I@,+rnesto P!no, 2%, a Deepney driver, entered a bedroom in theho!se of >rancisca Col :Aling Ni/ay;, I2, a widow. The ho!sewas located in the area /nown as 'ittle "ag!io, "arrioTinaDeros, Malabon, Ri5al. n seeing Aling Ni/ay sitting in bed,P!no ins!lted her by saying 7Mang/!/!lam /a mambabarang.Mayroon /ang b!b!yog.8 Then, he repeatedly slapped her andstr!c/ her several times on the head with a hammer !ntil shewas dead. The assa!lt was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cr!5, 2?,who was in the bedroom with the old woman, and by 'ina PaDes,

##


12/36

2I, a tenant of the adDoining room. They testified that P!noseyes were reddish. His loo/ was balef!l menacing.After the /illing P!no went to the room of 'ina where Hilariahad ta/en ref!ge and according to Hilaria, he made thefollowing confession and threat= 7H!wag /ayongmag/a/amaling t!mawag ng p!lis at sabihin ninyo na !malis/ayo ng bahay at hindi ninyo alam /!ng sino ang p!matay samatanda.8 And according to 'ina, P!no said= 7Pinatay /o iyongmatanda. H!wag /ayong t!mawag ng p!lis. Pag t!mawag /ayo

ng p!lis /ayo ang paghihigantihan /o.8P!no, a native of Macabebe, Pampanga, who testified abo!t fivemonths after the /illing, pretended that he did not rememberhaving /illed Aling Ni/ay. He believes that there are personswho are 7mang/!/!lam8 7mambabarang8 and 7mamb!b!yog8and that when one is victimi5ed by those persons, his feet mightshrin/ of his hands might, swell. P!no believes that a personharmed by a 7mambabarang8 might have a headache or aswelling nose and ears and can be c!red only by a !ac/ doctor:herbolaryo;. Conse!ently, it is necessary to /ill the7mang/!/!lam8 and 7mambabarang8.The trial co!rt concl!ded that if P!no was a homicidal maniacwho had gone berser/, he wo!ld have /illed also Hilaria and'ina. The fact that he singled o!t Aling Ni/ay signified that he

really disposed of her beca!se he tho!ght that she was a witch.

R%LING: 0H+R+>R+, the death penalty is set aside. Theacc!sed is sentenced to recl!sion perpet!a. The indemnityimposed by the trial co!rt is affirmed. Costs de oficio.

24. PEOPLE VS. PAM;I$

G.R. NO. 1244& (MARC! 2>>>)

Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Co!rt of!e5on City "ranch %#

Fact: This an appeal from the decision of the Regional TrialCo!rt "ranch %# !e5on City, finding the acc!sed appellantose C. Pambid g!ilty beyond reasonably do!bt of two co!nts of

stat!tory rape and sentencing him to s!ffer the penalty ofrecl!sion perpet!a with all the accessibly penalties and toindemnify the victim Maricon )elvie C. 4rifalda at P@, @@@

pl!s costs of each co!nt of rape. Maricon told her mother on thetwo incidents of rape, that sometime in April and May #$$?,when she was on the way home after having been told for anerrand, the acc!sed appellant, their neighbor, bro!ght her to hisho!se, and raped her. The acc!sed appellant threatened to beather if she wo!ld not comply and !sed a deadly weapon. )!ringthe time wherein the acc!sed was already raping the victim, theywere interr!pted by the /noc/ on the door by the mother of theacc!sed. The other incident of rape happened on one morningwhen Maricon was going on the nearby store where there wasno other people aro!nd. oseph then carried her to the sofa of hisho!se and raped her. After the acc!sed was arrested, he pleaded

not g!ilty and !se alibi as means & escape by saying that he wasnot in his mothers ho!se at that time b!t in Caloocan City onhis fathers ho!se.

Iue: 0hether or not the acc!sed appellant is g!ilty of twoco!nts of rape.

!e"#: The !preme Co!rt held that on the first error assign bythe acc!sed that the victim is inconsistent of her statement. The!preme Co!rt held that this contention is witho!t meritconsidering the revelation made by Maricon and her vol!ntarys!bmission of the medical e3amination and willingness to!ndergo p!blic trial where she was compelled to give details ofthe assa!lt on her dignity. Her testimony was given respect byThe !preme Co!rt considering his consistency and compos!re

d!ring the interrogation was commendable. econdly, thedefense that he was not in his mothers was not given credit. Thedefense of insanity that the acc!sed was s!ffering schi5ophreniaand mind retardation was mere concoctions beca!se he was notable to establish that indeed he was deprived of intelligence orfreedom of will. 'astly, the decision of the trial co!rt inrendering the acc!sed appellant in rendering the penaltyrecl!sion perpet!a with the !se of the deadly weaponconsidering that it is p!nishable by recl!sion perpet!a to death,this is in consideration also on the s!spension of the death

penalty at the time that the crime was committed. The !preme

Co!rt said that the trial co!rt was wrong with this decision andsince the acc!sed did not obDect of charging two co!nts of rapein one information. The trial co!rt failed to consider that theacc!sed did not obDect to the validity of the information or raisethe iss!e of d!plicity of offense since the information does notcharge him with more than one offense or occasion of rape.

$ec//0*: 0H+R+>R+, the decision of the RTC "ranch %#.!e5on City is set aside and another one is rendered finding

acc!sed appellant oseph Pambid g!ilty of one co!nt of rape,sentencing him to s!ffer the penalty of recl!sion perpet!a andorder him to pay Maricon P@, @@@ as civil indemnity and thesame amo!nt on moral damages.

2. PEOPLE VS. $O@%ENA

' P!IL > (19&9)

Nature: Appeal from an order of the Co!rt of >irst &nstance ofPangasinan which held that the acc!sed acted with discernmentin committing the act imp!ted to him and ordered him sent tothe Training chool for "oys to remain therein !ntil he reachesthe age of maDority.

>acts= "etween # and 2 ocloc/ in the afternoon, !an RagoDosand +pifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of theintermediate school. alentin, who was also playing thereintervened and catching the ball, tossed it to !an RagoDoshitting him in the stomach. >or his act, !an chased alentin!pon overta/ing him slapped him on the nape. alentin thent!rned against !an with a threatening attit!de, so !an str!c/him on the mo!th with his fist. !an then ret!rned and contin!ed

playing with +pifanio. alentin was offended and loo/ed aro!ndfor a stone to attac/ !an. He fo!nd none so he approached aco!sin named Rom!aldo Cecal to lend him his /nife.alentinapproached !an and challenged the latter to give him another

blow with his fist to which !an answered that he did not wantto beca!se he was bigger than alentin. !an ignored alentinand contin!ed playing. alentin then stabbed him in the chest

Iue: 0hether or not alentin acted with discernment

!e"#: )ecision is affirmed.

P0/*t t0 P0*#er:

• )iscernment is the mental capacity to!nderstand the difference between right andwrong and s!ch capacity may be /nown andsho!ld be determined by ta/ing intoconsideration all the facts and circ!mstancesafforded by the records in each case, thevery appearance, the very attit!de, the verycomportment of the said minor, not only

before and d!ring the act, b!t also after and

even d!ring trial.

2'. PEOPLE VS. LORENO

1&> SCRA &11 (194)

Nature: Appeal on the conviction of the Co!rt of >irst &nstanceof Camarines !r charging +!sta!io Malaga and immyMarantal of Robbery with )o!ble Rape.

Fact: n the evening of an!ary I, #$I%, "arangay Captain+lias Monge was at his ho!se with his two da!ghters, Monica,#1 years old and Cristina, 22 years old. His wife, "eata Monge,was still changing the diaper of baby Rachel "aybayon. Theother occ!pants of their ho!se that evening were Mario, ## yearsold. *ilo, #? years old and farm helper, >rancisco >able.

At aro!nd I=1@pm, fo!r men with flashlightsapproached their ho!se calling +lias saying that there was aletter for the chief. +lias then invited the man with dar/ sweaterto come inside the sala. Monica and +lias the read the letter7Nami ang *PA8. +lias was po/ed with a g!n and they were allordered to stay on the floor. >able the recogni5ed one of the menwas +!sta!io 'oreno. 'oreno then tied him with rattan. >ablealso recogni5ed immy Marantal as one of the loo/o!ts.

The man in the dar/ sweater then dragged Monica toher room and s!cceeded in raping her. "elow in the sala theyco!ld hear Monicas sho!ts for help, b!t 'oreno pointed hid g!n

#2


13/36

at them telling them not to rise off if they wanted to live. 'orenothen bro!ght "eata to the other rooms to get other contents.Then the man in the dar/ sweater ret!rned and too/ Cristina andalso raped her in one of the rooms. Moreover, 'oreno enteredthe room and embraced her trying to /iss her and to!ch her

private parts.The lower co!rt fo!nd 'oreno g!ilty of robbery with

do!ble rape sentencing him to life imprisonment. immyMarantal was fo!nd g!ilty of robbery sentencing him to prison

correccional as minim!m of prison mayor.

Iue: 0hether or not the acc!sed 'oreno and Marantal wereacting on irresistible force or !ncontrollable fear

!e"#: All facts demonstrated the vol!ntary participation andconspiracy of the appellants. All the conspirators are liable asco-principals regardless of the e3tend character of their

participation beca!se in the contemplation of law, the act of oneis the act of all. )ecision of the co!rt is modified. immyMarantal is sentenced to life imprisonment as well.

27. PEOPLE VS. FORON$A

222 SCRA 71 (199&)

*at!re=A review on the appealed decision of the Regional TrialCo!rt of Cagayan finding the acc!sed g!ilty beyond reasonabledo!bt for the crime of m!rder against the brothers +sminio and+dwin "alaan.

>acts= At abo!t 6=@@am, !ne ##, #$%6, the deceased "alaan brothers were ta/en by I armed men in fatig!e with longfirearms s!spected to be *PA members, accompanied by theacc!sed R!dy >ronda and Roderic/ Pad!a from the ho!se of one>erminio "alaan, at "rgy. Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. R!dy>ronda and Roderic/ Pad!a were residents of the same

places.The armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their bac/s, in front of their ho!se.The armed men together with>ronda and Pad!a proceeded towards sitio Cataratan, Allacapan,

Cagayan passing thro!gh the rice fields :ta/ing along with themthe "alaan brothers;.Trial co!rt fo!nd >ronda g!ilty as a principal by indispensablecooperation.(Testimony of Rudy Fronda)n the night of !ne #@, #$%6, he was ta/en by the *PA fromhis ho!se, accompanied by Robert Peralta, alias Na !n andRoderic/ Pad!a, to loo/ for the "alaan brothers.There were aro!nd $ *PAs with them. They fo!nd the "alaan

brothers at the ho!se of >erminio "alaan, a brother.They tied their wrists (19&')

Nature: Charged with the crime of infanticide, convictedthereof and sentenced to recl!sion perpet!a and thecorresponding accessory penalties, with the costs of the son.osefina "andian appealed from said sentence.

Fact: At a@bo!t I ocloc/ in the morning of an!ary ?#, #$?6,alentin Ag!ilar, the appellants neighbor, saw the appellant goto a thic/et abo!t fo!r or five bra5as from her ho!se, apparentlyto respond to a call of nat!re beca!se it was there that the peopleof the place !sed to go for that p!rpose. A few min!tes later, heagain saw her emerge from the thic/et with her clothes stainedwith blood both in the front and bac/, staggering and visiblyshowing signs of not being able to s!pport her. He ran to her and

said, having noted that she was very wea/ and di55y, hes!pported and helped her go !p to her ho!se and placed her inher own bed. F

119574376 crim 1 digests copy

Documents