Research In Aggravating Circumstances Cases In Criminal Law.docx

ARTICLE 14: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES a.

Insult to public authorities People vs. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308 People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601

b.

Dwelling

People vs. Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206 Facts: Three Criminal Cases were filed against appellant PACITO STO. TOMAS. One for PARRICIDE, for the death of Salvacion Grulla; another one for MURDER, for the death of appellant's mother-in-law Consolacion Grulla; and the third one for FRUSTRATED for the near fatal shooting of Natividad Grulla, appellant's sister-in-law. On May 23, 1967, Pacito Sto. Tomas arrived by car and at Grulla residence. Pacito asked his wife, Salvacion Grulla to go with him, together with their children, and rushed the maid to get their things packed for Legaspi City. Awakened by Pacito and Salvacion's conversation, Consolacion Grulla, came out and joined the spouses in the sala. There, Pacito asked his mother-in-law's permission to bring his wife and children to Legaspi City. The mother-in-law replied that her daughter cannot go with him to Legaspi because she does not want to live with him since she can no longer endure the sufferings she is undergoing because of his jealousy. His wife also refused because their youngest child Blesilda, then only seven months old, was with fever. While Natividad Grulla was in her room, she heard a series of gunshots and she went out her room to see Pacito firing at her sister. After the series of gunshot by Pacito, Natividad then saw her mother seated, motionless. Natividad pleaded with Pacito to spare Salvacion's life telling him that the latter would go with him to Legaspi. But her pleas merited no more than an expression of "Hmmm" from Pacito who began to reload his revolver. Natividad thought of escaping, as she entered her room, Pacito shot her with her back turned agaist appelant. Appellant denies any liability for the death of Salvacion, Consolacion, and the near fatal shooting of Natividad claiming that the death of the two (2) victims was purely accidental. Issue: Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of dwelling and treachery Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there is no dispute that the place where the crimes herein involved were committed is the house of Consolacion Grulla. It is there where she lives with her daughter, Natividad Grulla (the other victim) and where Salvacion Grulla was temporarily staying in order to escape from the brutalities of the appellant brought about by the latter's jealousy. The fact that Salvacion's stay in the said place may be considered as a temporary sojourn adds no validity to appellant's stance on this point. A review of the evidence on record, however, clearly indicates that Natividad was fired upon by the appellant while she was entering her bedroom with her back turned against the appellant. It was while she was running away with her arms raised in surrender that accused fired at her. Treachery therefore clearly attended the attack made upon her. People vs Apduhan, 24 SCRA 798 Facts: That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, Apolonio Apduhan, Jr and five (5) other persons whose true names are not yet known, all of them armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, feloniously enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their children. Once inside the said dwelling house, the accused with their five (5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another person by the name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said dwelling house. The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of dwelling will be taken on account. Ruling: The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, 17 ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide) the

authors thereof could have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon opines that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm. c.

Nighttime People vs. Garcia et al. GR L-30449

Facts: The accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso was found guilty of the crime of Murder considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime; superior strength; and treachery. The two accused together with unidentified companions maltreat, boxed, beat with pieces of wood and stabbed the deceased Apolonio Dioquino, Jr with 22 stab wounds. The accused contended that the lower court erred: in not considering nighttime and superior strength as absorbed in treachery and in finding nighttime as an aggravating circumstance despite absolute absence of evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to insure the execution of the crime. Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of nighttime is present. Ruling: The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said that it was committed at night, which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code, Article 13. The Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when the crime is committed in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the offense. There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative. In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the accused purposely sought the cover of night time. Next, we proceed and apply the objective test, to determine whether nocturnity facilitated the killing of the victim. A group of men were engaged in a drinking spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased by seven others. The criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their Identity because of the darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances combine to pass the objective test, and find that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with the lust to kill to follow their impulses with the false courage born out of the belief that they could not be readily identified.

d. Evident premeditation US vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77 Facts: Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909, while Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in Cotabato, Moro Province, he suddenly received a wound on the head delivered from behind and inflicted with a kris. Ricardo Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was standing behind the counter, upon hearing the noise and the cry of the wounded man, ran to his assistance and found him lying on the ground. Meanwhile the aggressor, the Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was passing along the street, and just as the latter was putting down his load in front of the door of a store and was about to enter, attacked him with the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound in the left shoulder, on account of which he fell to the ground. The Moro, who came from the rancheria of Dupit and had entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped up in banana leaves, in the meantime escaped by running away from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman and the Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the former died within an hour, the record not stating the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan Igual. Manalinde was found guilty of the crime of murder. Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is present in the case Ruling: The Supreme Court held that it is unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with a weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of

taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with whom he had never had any trouble; nor did there exist any reason which, to a certain extent, might warrant his perverse deed. The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed with deliberate intent, the crime is considered a premeditated one as the firm and persistent intention of the accused from the moment, before said death, when he received the order until the crime was committed in manifestly evident. Even though in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or promise, premeditation is sometimes present, the latter not being inherent in the former, and there existing no incompatibility between the two, premeditation can not necessarily be considered as included merely because an offer of money, reward or promise was made, for the latter might have existed without the former, the one being independent of the other. In the present case there can be no doubt that after the crime was agreed upon by means of a promise of reward, the criminal by his subsequent conduct showed a persistency and firm intent in his plan to carry out the crime which he intentionally agreed to execute, it being immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not conceive the crime, once Manalinde obeyed the inducement and voluntarily executed it. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. People vs. Discalsota GR 136892 Facts: The victim, Herbert Suarnaba, seated in the front of a pedicab while his two companions were inside and one Rowell Lavega stood on the rail at the back of pedicab. They had visited their friend Novieboy del Rosario. The pedicab had not left when Rowell saw the accused Sueene Discalsota running towards them from the footwalk. The four jumped out of the pedicab when Mrs. Del Rosario, Novieboy’s mother and the people there shouted at them to run. He was about to strike at Rowell when Mrs. Del Rosario pushed Rowell to run. When Mrs. Del Rosario fell down as if to faint, the victim helped her stand up. Mrs. Del Rosario then told the victim to run and he ran around the pedicab more than a foot long. While the victim was running away trying to escape, the man holding the knife caught up with him and thrust his knife at the fleeing victim who was hit at the back. Pedro, one of his friends and Rowell recognized the attacker as the one who earlier shouted at them while they were still inside the house of Mrs. Del Rosario. The victim was brought to hospital but died subsequently. The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of murder. It also appreciated evident premeditation and treachery as qualifying and aggravating circumstances, respectively, and thus sentenced him to death. The accused-appellant alleged that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime of murder despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and treachery. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation be appreciated in the case. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable from the determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Hence, the lower court erred in holding that evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder. In this case, the first two elements of evident premeditation are present. As found by the RTC, the time appellant determined to commit the crime was when he started shouting at the victim and the latters companions: You, there, get out and we will kill you! By staying outside the house and following the victims companions when they came out, he manifestly indicated that he clung to his determination. As for the third element, the prosecution evidence shows that appellant started shouting outside Mrs. del Rosarios house at 3:30 p.m. When the victims group left the house, it was not yet dark; it was only past four oclock in the afternoon. The police received information on the stabbing incident at 4:30 p.m. on the same day. It took less than an hour from the time appellant evinced a desire to commit the crime, as manifested by his shouts outside the house, up to the time he stabbed the victim. The span of less than one hour could not have afforded the former full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime he committed. US vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385 Facts: At the general election which was held on June 6, 1916, Conrado Lerma was elected governor of the Province of Bataan. One of his competitors upon this occasion was the accused, Jose I. Baluyot, who came out third in the race. As a result of this contest a feeling of personal rancor was developed in the mind of Baluyot against his successful competitor, and during the two years which followed the accused became fully imbued with the idea that Governor Lerma was persecuting him. Baluyot was convicted of the crime of murder, committed August 3, 1918, upon the Conrado Lerma, governor of said province. Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of treachery will be appreciated. Ruling: The fact Baluyot had already been called into the office upon the governor's first arrival and had withdrawn for a few moments to permit another person to have an interview was also calculated to put the governor off his guard at the moment

Baluyot reentered the office. Being seated in a reclining chair, and hemmed in by obstacles which prevented him from reaching his assailant, it is plain that the unarmed governor could make no effectual defense against a person armed with such a deadly weapon as a revolver. It is obvious also that the means and methods thus deliberately selected by the assailant were intended to insure the execution of the crime without any risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party could make. The court has held repeatedly that, even though the beginning of an attack resulting in the death of the deceased is free from treachery of any sort, nevertheless it will be found present if, at the time the fatal blow is struck, the deceased is helpless and unable to defend himself. While the writer of this opinion formerly held the view that, where there is no treachery in the attack which results in the death of the deceased, there can be no treachery which will qualify the crime as murder notwithstanding the fact that, at the time the fatal blow was struck, the deceased was unarmed and defenseless, nevertheless, the court having held so frequently the contrary, the writer accepts the doctrine so well established. People vs. Escote GR 140756 Facts: The accused Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr., armed with handguns robbed a bus and divested the money and valuables of the passengers. Juan divested Romulo, the conductor, of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he show them his identification card and wallet. Juan and Victor took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo. The police officer pleaded for mercy. However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance wounds which caused his death. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. Rodolfo, the driver and Romulo proceeded to the police station of Plaridel, Bulacan where they reported the robbery. The two accused were subsequently arrested. The RTC found them guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The accused contended that the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of crime of robbery with homicide. Issue: Whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide and whether treachery may be appreciated to the accused. Ruling: The Supreme Court finds that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery. However, treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures. Although at the time the crime was committed, generic aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the Information, however, the general rule had been applied retroactively because if it is more favorable to the accused. Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information, treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime. People vs. Caratao GR 126281 Facts: The accused-appelant, Sergio A. Caratao, stabbed the deceased Edgardo Bulawin, from behind thus inflicting upon him stab wounds on the different parts of his body, which directly caused his death. The appellant admitted stabbing the victim, but interposed self-defense to exculpate himself. The trial court gave credence to the prosecutions version of the incident. It found that the victims indifference to appellants repeated pleas for rice must have angered appellant to the point of attacking the victim upon seeing the latter about to leave without heeding his request. It rejected the plea of self-defense for appellants failure to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. It upheld the presence of treachery, but ruled out the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and cruelty, for lack of evidence. The appellant contends that the court erred in holding the accused committed murder in treachery. Issue: Whether or not the accused be guilty of murder in treachery. Facts: Treachery is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. In the case at bar, the first element was established by the fact that appellant suddenly attacked from behind the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who was then astride his motorcycle. However, the Supreme Court find the prosecutions evidence insufficient to sustain the finding of the presence of the second element, namely, that appellant deliberately adopted the mode of attack. Repeatedly upheld has been the rule that chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment, or those that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery, for lack of opportunity of the accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of attack. In the present case, it appears from the evidence that appellants grudge against the victim was brought about only moments before the attack, when the latter ignored his repeated pleas for rice. As observed by the trial court, the sight of the victim leaving the compound without heeding appellants request must have worsened his anger. Hence, as the killing was done at the spur of the moment, treachery cannot be appreciated. The trial court decision was modified from murder to homicide.

People vs. Sitchon GR 134362 Facts: The accused-appellant beat MARK ANTHONY FERNANDEZ y TABORA a minor, 2 years old, on the different parts of his body with the use of a steel hammer and a wooden stick, approximately 18 inches long, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter. Explaining his change of plea, appellant clarified that the killing of the boy was "accidental." He reiterated that he was under the influence of drugs, which he had taken one after the other. He was a drug dependent and, in fact, had been confined at the Tagaytay Rehabilitation Center. The RTC found him guilty of the crime of murder. Issue: Whether or not the accused be guilty of murder Ruling: The killing in this case was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It is beyond dispute that the killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense, is treacherous. Evident premeditation is absent. For the court to appreciate evident premeditation, the prosecution must prove: (a) the time the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequence of his act. The prosecution failed to establish any of these requisites. In view of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the killing of the victim is qualified to murder. People vs. Ancheta GR 138306-07 Facts: During trial, the main witness for the prosecution, Jonathan Aromin, testified that on the night of 2 September 1993 he and his neighbor Julian Ancheta went to the house of the accused who lived just across them. Julian told Jonathan to knock on the door first but when no one answered Julian did the knocking himself. When the accused opened the door, Jonathan immediately noticed that SPO1 Ancheta was armed with a gun. Intimidated, Jonathan began to move away. As he left the house of the accused, Jonathan suddenly heard two (2) shots which prompted him to hide behind the nearest wall.But when he looked back the accused SPO1 Ancheta was already aiming his revolver directly at his face and without hesitation shot him at close range. Stunned by the gunshot wound, Jonathan momentarily blacked out but soon regained consciousness when his neighbor, Leonila Lopez, came to his aid and rushed him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of murder in Crim. Case No. C- 44939 and frustrated murder in Crim. Case No. C-44940. Issue: Whether or not the accused be guilty of murder in Crim. Case No. C-44939 and ofFrustrated Murder in Crim. Case No. 44940. Ruling: While it was established that accused-appellant intentionally shot his brother Julian, the witnesses never saw how the killing started. Treachery cannot be considered where the witnesses did not see the commencement of the assault and the importance of such testimonies cannot be overemphasized considering that treachery cannot be presumed nor established from mere suppositions. And where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established. Hence, without the existence of treachery accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide in Crim. Case No. C-44939. Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. In the case at bar, however, there is no sufficient proof to establish with certainty that accused-appellant deliberately and consciously adopted the means of executing the crime against Jonathan Aromin. Furthermore, the victim was already aware of the danger as he saw accused-appellant carrying a gun and heard two (2) gunshots prompting him to run and hide behind a wall. Thus, there could be no treachery since prior to the attack the victim was forewarned of the danger to his life and even managed to flee, albeit unsuccessfully. Consequently, accused-appellant can only be convicted of frustrated homicide. f. Ignominy People vs. Alfanta, 320 SCRA 357 Facts: The victim, Nita Fernandez, was asleep in the residence of a friend when at around 12 midnight, a man she had not seen before suddenly entered the house, boxed her jaw and covered her mouth with his hand. He was pointing a bolo at her and threatened to kill her if she will resist. Thereafter, she was taken and brought to a vacant house where the stranger succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After the first intercourse, she was ordered to lie face down while the man sodomized her. Not satisfied, the accused then inserted his finger inside her. Thereafter, the man lay down beside her and again threatened to kill her. After a while, Nita noticed that the man was asleep, she then stabbed the man with the knife and

hacked him with the bolo when the former broke. She was able to escape and go to the authorities, who apprehended the man later on identified as the accused. Issue: Whether the crime of rape should be aggravated by nighttime. Whether there was ignominy when the accused forced the victim to engage in anal sex. Ruling: The law defines night as being from sunset to sunrise. By and itself, nighttime would not be an aggravating circumstance unless it is specially sought by the offender or taken advantage of by him, or it facilitated the commission of the crime by insuring the offender’s immunity from capture. In the present case, the accused abducted the victim, brought her to an abandoned, unlit house and then unleashed his carnal desire on her, assured of the stillness of a sleeping world. With respect to ignominy, Art 14 par 17 of the RPC considers to be aggravating any means employed or circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The case of People vs Saylan is applicable. In this case wherein the accused entered the victim from behind, the offender claimed that there was no ignominy because the studies of experts have shown that the position is not novel and has been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. This may well be true if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise. People vs. Dizon GR 134802, October 26, 2001 Facts: The complainant Arlie Rosalin was walking along the sidewalk of EDSA, Munoz, this city after alighting from a passenger bus, said accused suddenly appeared and embraced complainant and at knife point announced a hold-up and then and there rob, took and carted away items all in total amount of P9,500.00. In the occasion of the robbery, accused with lewd designs and with force and intimidation and with use of a knife undressed said complainant and put himself on top of her and have carnal knowledge with said complainant against her will and without her consent. The RTC found the accused guilty of robbery with rape attended by two aggravating circumstances. The accused-appellant contended that the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of robbery with rape and in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place. Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of cruelty and uninhabited place be appreciated in the case at bar. Ruling: Tested against the foregoing yardstick, the element of cruelty undoubtedly attended the commission of the crime in this case. 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. 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. In the case at bar, two (2) aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the robbery with rape, thus the trial court correctly imposed on the appellant the penalty of death.