Blank-34.docx

CRIM REVIEWER Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

Voluntary Surrender & Confession of Guilt - People vs Fontalba Facts: Deaf & Dumb - People vs. Navarro Facts: Anacleto Navarro is found guilty of robbery in an inhabited place by the CFI of Manila. He is deaf and dumb. His counsel argues that he did not know the import of his plea of guilt. Ruling: Navarro is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of being deaf and dumb. In addition to his plea of guilt, the Court thus imposes the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law.

Illness of the Offender - People vs Javier Facts: Accused Eduardo and the victim Florentina were married for 41 years. They live with one of their daughters, Alma. Between 2-3 in the morning, Consolacion, who lives near her parent's house about ten to fifteen meters away, heard her mother, Florentina shouting (Your father is going to kill me). She rushed out and met her sister, Alma, who told her that their parents were quarreling. They then called their brother, Manuel. The three proceeded to their parents' house and found the lifeless body of their mother and their father, wounded in the abdomen. Florentina was found dead in their bedroom, drenched in her own blood. Their father confessed that he killed his wife and allegedly stabbed himself. He used a sharp bolo. He claims that he could not sleep for almost a month. His suspicion that his wife was having an illicit relationship with another man goaded him to commit the crime. When the killing took place, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. He claims that he was insane. Issue: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of Illness Ruling; No. For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. Aside from the testimony of the accused that his mind went blank when he killed his wife due to loss of sleep, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental condition at the time of killing. No clear and convincing

evidence was shown that accused-appellant was suffering an illness which diminished his exercise of willpower at the time of the killing. He was aware of the acts he committed. First, he remembered killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a bolo, where he mangled her neck twice; he remembered trying to commit suicide, by wounding himself with the same bolo he used in killing his wife; and he remembered being brought to the hospital. Since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident, from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full control of his mental faculties. This negates his claim that he was suffering from an illness that diminished the exercise of his will-power.

Analogous Circumstance - People vs Genosa Facts: Ruling: The battered woman syndrome is characterized by a cycle of violence, which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer. She wants to prevent the escalation of the violence. This passive behaviour legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place. The acute battering incident is the phase where she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. She realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. During the tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. The batterer woyuld ask for forgiveness and promise never to beat her again. She tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person whom she loves. A battered woman usually believes, she is responsible for his well-being. The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage. She failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run away to her mothers or fathers house that Ben would seek her out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she would return to their common abode. Mitigating Circumstances Present The cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon appellant resulted in cumulative provocation which broke down her psychological resistance and natural self-control, psychological paralysis, and difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory. Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by appellant of her will power without, however, depriving her of consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken in her favor and considered as a mitigating factor. In addition, she also acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1)

there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity. His abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was directed at the lives of both Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation overcoming her reason.. there was no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have recovered her normal equanimity. It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts. On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts. The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident occurred when she was eight months pregnant with their child was deemed by her as an attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that of their unborn child. Such perception naturally produced passion and obfuscation on her part.

What is an aggravating circumstance? - Aggravating circumstance are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense. Four Kinds of Aggravating Circumstance 1. Generic - those that can apply to all crimes 2. Specific - those that apply only to particular crimes 3. Qualifying - those that change the nature of the crime 4. Inherent - those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime Generic aggravating Circumstance vs Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance GENERIC - The effect is to increase e penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the maximum period, without exceeding that which is required by law. - It may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance QUALIFYING - The effect is not only to give the crime its proper & exclusive name, but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime. - It cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance. - It must be alleged in the information, otherwise, it is only generic. What is a Special Aggravating Circumstance? - Special Aggravating are those which arise upon special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the penalty to the net higher degree. - It does not change the character of the offense charged. It must always be alleged and charged in the information, and must be proven during trial in order to be appreciated. - It cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

- Example: Quasi-recidivism (ART 160); Complex Crimes (ART 48) People vs De Leon Facts: Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; and Edralin Macahis, security guard; were all employees of Energex Gasoline Station. At around 2 in the morning, they were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX arrived for service at the said gasoline station.Eduardo Zulueta was the one who attended to the said vehicle. He saw around 6-7 persons aboard the vehicle. He proceeded to fill up P50.00 worth of diesel in the gas tank. After doing this, the driver told him that the engine would not start. Eduardo Zulueta offered to give the vehicle a push. While Eduardo Zulueta and fellow gasoline boy Fortunato were positioned at the back of the vehicle, ready to push the same, the six male passengers of the same vehicle, except the driver, alighted and announced a hold-up. They were armed with a shotgun and .38 caliber pistol. Fortunato was ordered to lie down, while Eduardo Zulueta was directed to go near the Car Wash Section. Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the latter and took the latter's wallet containing a pawnshop ticket and P50.00. Four members of the group went to the cashier's office and took the money worth P3,000.00. Those four robbers were also the ones who shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach. Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin Macahis' service firearm. After he heard successive gunshots, Eduardo Zulueta saw appellant and his companions immediately leave the place. Julieta Amistoso, who told him that the robbers took her bag and jewelry. He also saw that Edralin Macahis had a gunshot wound in the stomach, which caused his death. Appellant’s defense - He only hitched a ride on the vehicle. He was asked by other passengers to join them in their destination. He fell asleep, hen he woke up, they were already in a gasoline station and his companions were conducting a hold-up. He never left the vehicle because he was overwhelmed with fear. RTC - Convicted. Robbery with homicide. Penalty of Death. Issue: Whether or not the appellant’s use of unlicensed firearm is a special or generic aggravating circumstance Ruling: Aside from the aggravating circumstances above mentioned, there is also an aggravating circumstance provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, which is a special law. Its pertinent provision states: If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that such provision is silent as to whether it is generic or qualifying. Thus, it ruled that when the law is silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the accused. This interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance. Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance. In another case, this Court ruled that, the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm. After a careful study of the records of the present case, this Court found that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly proven by the prosecution. Although

jurisprudence dictates that the existence of the firearm can be established by mere testimony, the fact that appellant was not a licensed firearm holder must still be established. The prosecution failed to present written or testimonial evidence to prove that appellant did not have a license to carry or own a firearm, hence, the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated.

What is an inherent aggravating circumstance? Requires that every complaint or information must expressly and specifically allege not only the qualifying but also the generic aggravating circumstance. RATIONALE: To inform the existence of qualifying circumstance is for accused to prepare properly for his defense to meet head-on the qualifying circumstance and because such circumstance changes the nature of the charge against him What is the effect of proving an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information during trial? - Aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information but proven during trial serve only to aid the court in fixing the limits of the penalty, but do not change the character of the offense. - Generic Aggravating Circumstance, even if not alleged in the information, may be proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in imposing the sentence. Such evidence merely forms part of the proof of the actual commission of the offense and does not violate the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. - A qualifying aggravating circumstance must also be alleged in the information. People vs. Casitas Jr. Facts: At around 7:30 am, Jose Casitas, Jr., also known as Boboy, was at the store of Romeo Briones. This store is located near the house of Mario Chan, the house where Haide Marbella was working as caretaker. Appellant and Romeo Briones were able to converse for about 20 minutes. During their conversation, appellant showed Romeo the 3 25-centavo coins which he had and said (this venture of mine is being taken on a chance). Thereafter, Romeo turned away. He never noticed when appellant left his store. Nearby, Corazon passed by the same store, going towards the Street for the purpose of dumping the sand piled at the side of the road on the drainage, which was beside the house of Mario. While she was proceeding to the pile of sand, Corazon saw Haide and seeing that Haide wanted to talk with her, Corazon went to the store of Romeo and waited there for Haide. At the store, Haide asked Corazon if the latter was willing to lend her P200.00 to which the latter agreed. Before Haide left to go back to the house of Mario Chan, she looked at appellant who was still at the store. Thereafter, Corazon followed Haide to borrow the shovel which she would use for the pile of sand. She then proceeded towards the pile of sand and began to shovel sand to a pail and dumped it on the drainage. When Corazon felt thirsty, she went to the house of Mario to ask Haide for cold drinking water. Calling out to Haide, Corazon decided to enter the compound as there was no answer from inside the house. Since the gate and the door to the house were not locked, Corazon entered to look for Haide. At the kitchen, she saw Haide sprawled on the kitchen floor lying face down and bloodied. On the other side of the house, the house boy, while bringing out a gas tank to the car of latter, saw a man inside the compound of the residence of Mario. He saw the man looking from side to side and then jumped over the fence. Then, this man casually walked away from the house of Mario Chan tucking in his shirt inside

his pants. He noticed that the mans shirt was bloodied and very red and the edge of his pants [was] red. He recognized this man to be appellant. 17 wounds. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds. Defense: On that day, he was leaving for Manila. But before leaving, he dropped by Legaspi to et the money his mother was borrowing from Angelo. He left Legaspi at around 6 and arrived in Manila at around 4am. Issue: Whether or not Ruling: Likewise, we find that the RTC erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling to justify the imposition of the death penalty. As a general rule, dwelling is considered aggravating if the crime was committed by the accused in the home of the offended party, and if the latter had not provoked the former.[33] However, this Court has categorically ruled that when the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not alleged in the information, it cannot be appreciated to raise the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. In any case, it is worth noting that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now require that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court, even if they are subsequently proved during trial.[37] The pertinent portions of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules are reproduced hereunder: SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute; aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of the Information filed against appellant clearly shows that dwelling was not alleged as an aggravating circumstance. Even assuming that this circumstance was subsequently proven during trial, the lower court was precluded from appreciating it because of the new requirement under the rules. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Article 249 of the RPC, which defines and penalizes the crime of homicide.

Discuss & State the Basis for each. 1. That the advantage be taken by the offender of his public position - Basis: On the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his personal circumstance & the means used to secure commission of the crime - Must be a public officer who takes advantage of his position. He must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy. “Did the accuse abuse his office in order to commit the crime?” - Example: 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities - Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public authorities - Requisites: A. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions B. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of his functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed C. The offender knows him to be a public authority D. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act

- Public Authority - person in authority; directly vested with jurisdiction, has the power to govern and execute laws —— Governor, Mayor, Kapitan - Police Officers are only agents of authority - Example: 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his age, rank, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. - Have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only. - Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstance of the offended party and the place of the commission of the crime - Only for crimes against persons or honor. The accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the offended party. Par. 4. – That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence, or (2) obvious ungratefulness o BASIS – they are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways employed Par. 5. – That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. o BASIS – they are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected. Par. 6. – That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense. o BASIS – they are based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and means and ways employed. Par. 7. – That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. o BASIS – the basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the commission of the crime. Par. 8. – That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity. o BASIS – it is based in the means and ways of committing the crime. Par. 9. – That the accused is a recidivist. o BASIS – this is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crimes.

Par. 10. – That the offender has been previously punished for a offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. o BASIS – the basis is the same as that of recidivism, i.e., the greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to crimes Par. 11. – That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise. o BASIS – this is based in the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself. Par. 12. – That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use if any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. o BASIS – the basis has reference to means and ways employed. Par. 13. – That the act be committed with evident premeditation o BASIS – the basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it. Par. 14. – That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed. o BASIS – the basis has reference to the means employed in the circumstance of the crime. Par. 15. – That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means be employed to weaken the defense. o BASIS – the basis has reference to means and ways employed. o Meaning of “advantage be taken” – to take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Par. 16. – That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia) o BASIS – the basis has reference to the means and ways employed to the commission in the crime. Par. 17. – That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. o BASIS – the basis has reference to the means employed. Par. 18. – That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. o BASIS – the basis has reference to the means and ways employed to commit the crime.

Par. 19. – That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. o BASIS – the basis has reference to the means and ways employed to commit the crime. o Is the cutting of the canvas of the tent where soldiers are sleeping covered by this article? – it was considered aggravating in murder where the accused cut the ropes at the rear of a field tent and killed two soldiers inside the tent. The Supreme Court called it “the aggravating circumstance of forcible entry.” Par. 20. – That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or (2) by means of motor vehicle, airships, and other similar means. o BASIS – the basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime. Par. 21. – That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. o

BASIS – the basis has reference to ways employed in committing the crime .

Nighttime. People vs. Tolentino Facts: Rogelio Novelo, the surviving spouse of the deceased-victim Josita Novelo, and appellant Jesus Trinidad agreed to manage and operate a rented fishpond. When the fishpond was yielding its first harvest, Rogelio Novelo and his wife Josita brought the produce to Manila to be sold, while appellant Jesus Trinidad was left to manage the fishpond. When they returned, they discovered that all the fish and crabs in the fishpond had already been harvested and disposed of. Believing that appellant Trinidad was responsible for the pilferage, Josita demanded from him either the return of the couples investment or be allowed to buy appellant Trinidads share in the partnership. Appellant chose the latter. The couple proceeded to replenish the fishpond with crab seedlings. When the crabs were ready for harvest, appellant Jesus Trinidad and his companions, without the permission from the couple, harvested the crabs. The couple confronted appellants, but they were merely ignored. The couple filed a complaint before the barangay. Rogelio Novelo took a trip to Manila, leaving his wife Josita to manage the fishpond. At around 10:30 p.m., Antonio Bea, one of the caretaker of the fishpond, was inside his house. He heard someone calling his name from outside his house. Carrying a flashlight, Bea went outside. Suddenly, Emelio Tolentino grabbed his hand and pulled him out of the house. There he saw appellant Jesus Trinidad, Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. Jesus Trinidad kicked Bea on the right side of his hip, and tied a rope around his hands behind his back. Then appellant Emelio Tolentino pulled him by the rope towards the house of a certain Ricardo Basila. Upon reaching the house of Ricardo Basila, Arnel Trinidad called out the former. They took turns in kicking Ricardo Basila and ordered him to get inside his house. They proceeded to the house of the spouses Novelo. When they arrived, Jesus Trinidad called Josita Novelo. Josita Novelo went out of the house holding a light. Jesus Trinidad quickly grabbed her by her mouth and the two of them went inside the house. From inside the house, Emelio Tolentino and Jesus Trinidad took Antonio Bea to another door leading outside and chanced upon Antonio Novelo, Rogelio Novelos brother. Immediately, Jesus Trinidad and Emelio Tolentino kicked Antonio Novelo causing the latter to fall right into the fishpond and disappear from sight. Antonio Bea was then tied to the door from the waist down with Emelio Tolentino

guarding him. In that position, Antonio Bea saw Josita Novelo being mauled by Jesus Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. All of a sudden, Jesus Trinidad shot Josita Novelo on the left cheek with a gun. Immediately after, Emelio Tolentino entered the house and slashed the face of Josita with a jungle bolo.Without warning, Emelio Tolentino stabbed Antonio Bea four times in the stomach with the formers jungle bolo. Antonio Bea fell into the fishpond. RTC: Issue: Whether or not there is a generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime Ruling: No. Nighttime is considered an aggravating circumstance only when it is sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure their escape. There must be proof that this was intentionally sought to ensure the commission of the crime and that the perpetrators took advantage of it. Although the crime was committed at nighttime, there is no evidence that the appellants and their companions took advantage of nighttime or that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime.

Evident Premeditation - People vs. Escarlos Facts: Around 9 oclock in the evening, Antonio Balisacan went to the residence of Jaime Ulep in Domampot, Asingan, Pangasinan to attend a benefit dance which was near the place. In the benefit dance was his son Crisanto, who attended the dance with his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Ceasario Escarlos, appellants brother. While Ceasario was calling the victim, Antonio Balisacan, to come to the the stage as he was a kagawad, Crisanto heard the people at his back shout “Ay!” With the place [ Illuminated, he saw appellant stab his father, Antonio, several times. Jesus Dismaya was also beside Ceasario when Antonio Balisacans name was called. When he heard people shout, he turned around and saw appellant stabbing Antonio four (4) times with a ten (10) inch-long knife. Antonios brother, went near Antonio, hugged him, and asked who stabbed him. He replied, Tomy Escarlos. Defense: On that night, he was accused at the yard of Jaime Ulep. He was invited to buy lechon during the benefit dance.While thereat, Kgd. Antonio Balisacan who was then drunk, told him, You are here again to create trouble. Accused was offended so he answered back saying Why do you say that to me when I am not doing any trouble here. Antonio Balisacan told him, OKINNAM KETDI and boxed him, hitting him on the forehead, which left a scar. He intended to box back but he noticed that the victim was pulling out a kitchen knife about 10 to 12 inches, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the weapon from Antonio Balisacan and used the knife in stabbing the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He stabbed him twice and when the victim was about to fall down, he was able to hit him for the third time. RTC: Convicted of murder Issue: Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of edivent premeditation is not present in this case Ruling: No. There is evident premeditation when the execution of a criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out a criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. Obviously, the acts of appellant in the present case can hardly be described as a product of reflective thought or deliberate planning towards a decisive resolve to kill the victim. On the contrary, the confrontation that escalated to a violent brawl was quite spontaneous, casual and incidental. Verily, the brutal killing was not the result of a previous plot or sinister design to end the life of the victim. The elements of evident premeditation are as follows: (a) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to the determination to commit the crime; and

(c) the lapse of a period of time, between the determination and the subsequent execution of the crime, sufficient to allow the accused an opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of the act. As found by the trial court, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish any of the foregoing requisites. When there is no showing how and when the plan to kill was decided or how much time had elapsed before the crime was carried out, there is no evident premeditation

Craft, Fraud, or Disguise - People vs. Reyes Facts: About 7:00 o'clock in the evening, the victim, Meynardo "Jun Boy" Altobar, Jr., together with his companions were seated in front of the sari-sari store. They were talking with each other when suddenly a "bemoustached" man approached them and asked, "Ikaw ba si Jun Boy?" When the latter replied by nodding his head, the man, immediately pulled out a gun from something which looked like a book tightly held under his left armpit and shot the victim, hitting him in the neck. Broas was able to push the wounded victim aside before the assailant pulled the trigger for a second shot. Thereafter, appellant pointed the gun at the group and pulled the trigger , but the gun jammed and did not fire. The appellant was wearing a piece of a lady’s stockings as a mask, RayBan sunglasses, a sure-fit cap, black pants, and white t-shirt. Defense: On that day, he was doing a painting job at a cockipit which is about 85-90 km away from the place. It would tae more than two hours to travel. Prosecution’s Witness: At around 5, appellant was at the house of the witness cause they were having a celebration. He left after one bottle of beer. After the party, they even saw him walking along the street. RTC: Murder qualified by evident premeditation, with the attendant generic circumstance of nocturnity Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of disguise is present in the case Ruling: No. While he had a sort of a mask and sunglasses, these clumsy accouterments could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disguise contemplates a superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification. Here, even if it is true that he assumed that masquerade, appellant was readily recognizable because his face could easily be seen together with the identifying feature of his mustache. Thus, there was no mention of his having used a disguise, whether in the information or by the trial court, the prosecution or the Solicitor General. Why appellant resorted to that juvenile gaucherie is an example of the delusive quirks of the criminal mind which defy rational explanation.

Abuse of Superior Strength - People vs. Villanueva Facts: At around past 5:00 a.m. Amie Bafiaga (Bañaga) was selling tapsilog. Thereupon, she saw the accusedappellants and Valencia arrive and asked the group if they know Enrico Enriquez (Enrico), to which they answered in the negative. Thereupon, the accused-appellants and Valencia went to the tricycle terminal, where they saw Enrico. They then simultaneously attacked Enrico. Villanueva punched Enrico on the face twice while Sayson hit the latter at the back of the head with a stone wrapped in a t-shirt. Valencia then stabbed Enrico on the left side of his armpit twice. Enrico tried to fight back to no avail. Defense: Villanueva claimed that around 2:00 a.m., the accused-appellants and Valencia went to the house of their friend to eat and have a drinking spree. At around 4:30 a.m., Valencia left the group and, 30 minutes thereafter, the accused-appellants also went home. On their way home, the accused-appellants saw Valencia arguing with Enrico which led to a fistfight. They tried to pacify Valencia and Enrico, but the latter suddenly fell on the ground. Valencia immediately ran away, leaving the accused-appellants standing near the body of Enrico.

RTC: Murder with qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength Issue: Whether or not there exists an abuse of superior strength Ruling: No. The prosecution failed to establish the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The fact that the accused-appellants and Valencia, armed with a knife and a stone, ganged up on Enrico does not automatically entails that it was attended by the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, 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 take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. In the present case, the prosecution failed to present evidence to show a relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, attacked the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, is not per se indicative of abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers does not indicate the presence of this circumstance. Nor can the circumstance be inferred solely from the victim's possibly weaker physical constitution. In fact, what the evidence shows in this case is a victim who is taller than the assailants and who was even able to deliver retaliatory fist blows against the knife-wielder. In this case, the prosecution failed to present evidence as regards the relative disparity in age, size, strength or force between the accused-appellants and Valencia, on one hand, and Enrico, on the other. Mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.

Treachery - People vs Gonzales Treachery - People vs. Viscarra Facts: At around 5:45 p.m., Anselmo, Aurelio, and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to Sampol Market in San Jose Del Monte City. As they were making their way to the market, they saw appellant in his store located on the right side of the street. Suddenly, appellant rushed towards them and stabbed Romeo twice - one on the chest and another on the abdomen. They were all caught by surprise due to the suddenness of the attack. Romeo fell to the ground while appellant quickly ran away from the scene. Aurelio chased appellant but failed to catch up with him. Two fatal stab wounds. The first stab wound penetrated his chest and pierced his heart while the wound on his abdomen pierced the pancreas and his small intestines. Both stab wounds appeared to have been caused by a single-bladed weapon.

Defense: He was falsely accused. At that day and time, he was working as a construction worker in a site 89km away from his residence. him about a stabbing incident that had just taken place near his home. Upon arriving home, his wife and his parents told him that a stabbing incident took place in front of their store and that the alleged assailant passed through their yard to the street at the back and managed to escape. The only reason why he could be accused is because he turned down Anselmo’s request for 200php to buy shabu when they were having a drinking spree. RTC - Murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery Issue; Whether or not uhm Ruling: Yes. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that"[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." Thus in order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." In this case, the appellant’s sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was employed. The eyewitnesses were all consistent in declaring that the appellant in such a swift motion stabbed Romeo such that the latter had no opportunity to defend himself or to fight back, which diminished the risk to himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the victim. It is of no consequence that appellant was in front of Romeo when he thrust the knife to his torso. Records show that appellant initially came from behind and then attacked Romeo from the front. In any event, "[e]ven a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.”

Ignominy - People vs Mejorada Facts: Mrs. Elizabeth Regino, a public school teacher, 25, married for four years and has three children. She was sleeping at their house together with Nancy Mejorada, the accused's daughter. Her husband, and their three children, was at that time was attending the nightly prayer for his dead grandmother. She was making test questions in preparation for the third grading period. That was also the reason why she requested Nancy to accompany her because she was alone in their house. At about 11:40 in the evening, she noticed that somebody forcibly opened the door. Believing that it was her husband, she stood up in order to switch on the light. Before she reached the light, she was hugged by the person and a knife was pressed on her face. The accused pressed her downward and forced her in going out of their house. She was brought at the back of their house, particularly at the grassy area. She was able to recognize the accused when he was hit by the light in the chapel. She recognized the knife for the reason that she used to borrow the same with her sister. When they were in the grassy area, she struggled more to completely recognize the person. He forcibly pushed her down and she was at the kneeling position with her two hands as a support to her body. The accused bent his body towards her. The knife was touching her side. The accused kept on telling her not to shout or else he will kill her. She was at the kneeling position when the accused removed her underwear downward up to her knee. At that time the accused started to have sexual

intercourse with her by trying to insert his penis in her organ. She felt that it has penetrated. After the accused satisfied his lust, he withdrew, stood up and told her (Don't tell your husband, otherwise, I'll kill you or I'll kill your husband) She narrated the whole incident to Vice Mayor Guido in the presence of her husband. Vice Mayor Guido then summoned the accused who asked for forgiveness and appealed for settlement. Defense: He was in the house of Carding Ayop, working in the Franklin Baker, to help in the preparation for the barrio fiesta. At 10:45 in the evening of the same day, he went back to his house. He brought a little food for his family. After eating, he had a conversation with his wife and slept together with his wife. Nancy, the daughter, declared that her father was in the house of Carding Ayop. She was told by her mother to accompany Elizabeth in their house. When she was in the house of Elizabeth, they had a conversation particularly on the fact that Elizabeth's husband left their conjugal home. At about midnight, when she was about to sleep, she noticed that Elizabeth rose from their bed and went out. She further testified that she did not notice any wound on Elizabeth's hand's nor any dirt in her duster.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobl virtual la RTC: Crime of Rape Issue: Whether or not the the aggravating circumstance of ignominy is present Ruling: Yes. The trial court should have appreciated against the accused the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and ignominy, which, though not alleged in the information, were duly proven without objection on the part of the accused. At twenty minutes to midnight, the latter unleashed the fury of his criminal mind on a sleeping victim. He defiled the sanctity of Mrs. Regino's home by forcibly opening its door. Wanting to force upon her his evil desires, he hugged her and then pressed a knife to her face without any provocation on her part. He thereupon had sexual intercourse with her in a "dog-style" position. While such a position has been resorted to by consenting adults, it adds ignominy when employed in rape cases

Cruelty & Uninhabited Place - People vs. Dizon Facts: At around 9:30 p.m., private complainant Arlie Rosalin, then a 21-year old engineering student from Dinalupihan, Bataan, alighted from a bus as it stopped by a small bridge along EDSA. Seconds later, she heard someone call out Miss! and when she turned her head around, she found appellant behind her.Appellant suddenly seized her, pointing a fan knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. He then told her to face the railing of the bridge and asked for her wallet and jewelry. Terrified, private complainant complied. He also got her backpack, warning her that should he find another wallet inside, he would kill her and throw her over the bridge as he had done to his other victim as he had already killed other people. He instructed her to walk with him along EDSA and pretend that they were a couple. Scared as she was, however, private complainant would furtively look at appellants face whenever they passed a lighted place, vowing to herself that should she ever be able to escape, she would remember him. They reached a dark and empty basketball court. There, appellant ordered her to remove her pants and underwear. He kissed her on the lips, neck, and breasts, which he also mashed. He likewise bit her nipple at least three times, as well as the right side of her back and vagina.Unable to control his lustful urges any longer, he forced her to bend forward over the hood of a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated her vagina with his organ. He ordered her to hold and massage his penis which, he boastfully informed the latter, carried bolitas. He then forced her to put his foul-smelling penis into her mouth. Still not done with her, appellant forced private complainant to lie on the ground. Private complainant could not fight off any of appellants demands, because whenever she tried to resist, and whenever she failed to answer any of his questions, he would bang her head on the hood of the taxi, slam her head on the wall, or slap her hard in the face.

After appellant pushed private complainant to the ground, he went down on her and proceeded to ravish her all over again. He made her sit astride over him, and to make sure she would not be able to escape, held her tightly by the hair with both hands. When private complainant balked at inserting his organ inside of hers, appellant removed one hand from her hair and groped in the dark. Sensing that he was reaching for his knife and would finally kill her, private complainant struggled with all her might and broke free from appellants hold. She scampered to her feet, grabbed her pants, and ran as fast as she could away from appellant. Soon, private complainant found a store that was about to close. She barged in, informing the people that she had been raped, and pleaded for their help. Defense: At that time and day, he was just at home resting. RTC: Robbery with rape attended by two aggravating circumstances Issue: Ruling: The test of cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering, or outraged, or scoffed at his person or corpse. Where the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, inflicted on the victim unnecessary physical and moral pain, with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim, cruelty is present. As recounted by private complainant, appellant not only raped her, but subjected her to various dehumanizing indignities, such as making her fondle and put his foul-smelling penis in her mouth, forcing her to admire his bolitas, and demanding that she assume embarrassing and indelicate positions. Furthermore, he viciously slammed her head against the hood of the taxi, banged her head against the wall, and slapped her hard in the face whenever she failed to answer any of his questions. All these wrongs were no longer necessary insofar as appellants purpose of raping private complainant was concerned. By subjecting her to these unwarranted physical and moral abuses on top of raping her, appellant deliberately and inhumanly augmented her pain and sufferings, thus, committing cruelty. Finally, appellant claims that the generic aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated against him since the basketball court where he supposedly brought his victim cannot be considered an uninhabited place. Appellant cites private complainants testimony that the basketball court was near a highway and surrounded by houses. Whether or not a place may be considered uninhabited, is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Appellant precisely sought the solitude of the basketball court to ensure that private complainant would not be able to call for, and receive, any help. Aside from being cloaked by the darkness of the night, the basketball court was a relatively isolated place, shielded from the public view by the high walls of the surrounding houses. Private complainant could have screamed at the top of her lungs and nobody still would have heard her. Without a doubt, therefore, the trial court properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place against appellant.

ARTICLE 15 Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

What is an Alternative Circumstance? Those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission What is its basis? The basis is the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission Relationship - People vs Fernandez Facts: Fernandez (20) and AAA (13) were first degree cousins. One night, Fernandez and AAAs father were drinking wine. Appellant gave money to AAAs father to buy more wine. When AAAs father left, appellant went upstairs where AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping. Appellant covered AAAs mouth and then raped her. When AAA woke up, she noticed appellant lying on top of her and she felt pain in her vagina. She could not overpower appellant who was heavier and stronger than her. Appellant thereafter went down and had another drinking bout with AAAs father. Defense: AAA was his girlfriend. She was mentally slow and shy. They had sexual intercourse from 1995 until 1997, although it was only in 1997 that AAA became his girlfriend. He accused AAA of initiating their sexual intercourse and claimed that AAA is a sex maniac. Ruling: The Court notes that the trial court mistakenly considered as an aggravating circumstance the relationship of appellant to AAA. Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. The relationship between appellant and AAA as first cousins is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned.

Intoxication - People vs Sitchon Facts: At about 10:00 in the morning o, Lilia was in front her house children when she heard the sound of a boy crying. Curious, Lilia went up the stairway, her children in tow. The open door of the upper floor allowed Lilia to witness appellant beating two-year old Mark Anthony Fernandez., Lilia saw appellant hit various parts of the boys body with a piece of wood, about 14 inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. Appellant also banged the head of the boy against the wooden wall. The beating went on for about one hour. Lilia then saw appellant carry the boy down the house to bring him to the hospital. The two-year old was already black and no longer moving.[4] Eight-year old Roberto Fernandez is the elder brother of the victim, also known as Macky. According to Roberto, Macky had scattered his feces all over the house. Kuya Chito, thus beat Macky with a belt, a hammer and a 2x2 piece of wood. Roberto could not do anything to help his brother because he was afraid. Roberto identified the two pieces of wood[6] that appellant allegedly used in beating the victim. He also identified the T-shirt[7] that Macky wore when he died.

Defense: Appellant, 40, a sidewalk vendor, claimed that he killed the boy only because he was under the influence of shabu, marijuana and Valium 10 at that time and had been confined at the Tagaytay Rehabilitation Center. He was a drug dependent. He came upon Macky playing with his feces, scattering them all over the pillow, the bed sheets and the curtains. Appellant scolded the boy, Putang-ina ka Macky! Bakit mo ikinalat ng ganyan ang tae mo? Halika, dadalhin kita sa baba para hugasan! He became so angry that he picked up a broom with a wooden handle, and hit the boy. Appellant did not realize that he had hit Macky hard until he saw the boy sprawled on the floor, breathing with difficulty. He clarified that the killing of the boy was "accidental.". He said he was conscious when the incident happened but he simply did not realize that he had hit the child hard with the brooms wooden handle. He denied having hit the boy with a hammer or having banged his head against the wall.

Ruling: The trial court also considered intoxication as an aggravating circumstance. The Solicitor General defends this ruling, contending that appellants habitual drug addiction is an alternative circumstance analogous to habitual intoxication under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code: Intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The Court does not agree. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code provides a list of mitigating circumstances, which work to reduce the accuseds penalty. Article 13(10) allows courts to consider any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned therein. Neither Article 14 of the same Code on aggravating circumstances[24] nor Article 15 on alternative circumstances,[25] however, contain a provision similar to Article 13(10). Accordingly, the Court cannot consider appellants drug addiction as an aggravating circumstance.Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and no person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them.

Degree of Instruction - People vs Abanes