Title 8 Digest.docx

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 1

2. TITLE VIII → 123 CASES

STATUS

Alaba

1-20

COMPLETE

Andoy

21-40

Mabborang

41-60

Nenaria

61-81

Labendia

82-102

Matilac

103-123

People vs Subano, 73 Phil 692 (1942)

FACTS: Pilos Subano and his wife Bankalot had quarrels in two separate occasions. When the wife refused to accompany him in the river to catch fish, Subano dragged her and killed her. It appears that Subano has three wives. ISSUE: Whether or not Subano is guilty of Parricide

COMPLETE

E-SCRA ACCOUNT Username: [email protected] Password: escra

HELD: No. The crime committed is homicide and not parricide. From the testimony of Ebol Subano, father of the deceased, it appears that the Subano has three wives and that the deceased was the last in point of time. Although the practice of polygamy is approved by custom among these non-Christians, polygamy, however, is not sanctioned by the Marriage Law which merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals. The deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful wife of the defendant and this precludes conviction for the crime of parricide. 3.

People vs Cruz, 109 Phil 288 (1960)

VISIT: http://www.central.com.ph/escra/ -

Digest Properly Maximum of 5 sentences for facts, if possible Use the most important ruling related to the facts. E-scra will help. 😊 Some cases are found in the book of Reyes but do not contain any facts Please do not use the “petitioner” or “respondent” or “appellant” or “defendant”, please rename it according to Atty. Dulay

- DEADLINE: MARCH 18, 2019 (Monday) TITLE VIII – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ALABA Article 246. Parricide. 1.

People vs Embalido, 58 Phil 154 (1933)

FACTS: Feliciano Embalido was charged with the crime of parricide. He admits having killed his wife, but claims that he surprised her in the act of committing adultery. The lower court found him guilty of the crime of parricide. ISSUE: Whether or not Embalido is guilty of parricide HELD: Yes. In cases of parricide, prosecution is required to prove three facts, namely: (1) That death of the deceased: (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Here, the victim is the legitimate spouse of the accused Embalido.

FACTS: Remigio Cruz was married to Natividad Concepcion in 1953. In 1954 Natividad separated from Cruz allegedly because he used to beat her up. Eventually, they reconciled. After learning that they left him, Cruz followed his wife and daughter to Cabanatuan City where her parents lived. Cruz and his wife were talking but eventually, he started hacking her with the bolo. Cruz contends that, assuming that he was mentally fit at the time of the killing, he should not have been convicted of the crime of parricide because his marriage to Natividad was not provided in accordance with the best evidence rule. ISSUE: May an oral evidence to prove the fact of marriage be admissible? HELD: Yes. In a case of parricide, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. If, however, the oral evidence presented to prove the fact of marriage is not objected to, the said evidence may be considered by the court. 4.

People vs Berang, 69 Phil 83 (1939)

FACTS: The accused Berang was charged with parricide because he boloed to death his wife Mora Bayna and child. The accused told the sergeant that he killed his wife and children because he was made with rage. There was doubt regarding the evidence of the marriage of Berang and Mora Bayna. ISSUE: Whether or not Berang is guilty of parricide HELD: Yes, he is guilty of parricide for killing his daughter. However, as to Mora Bayna, the court considered it homicide only in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage. 5.

People vs Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739 (1982)

FACTS: A complaint for murder was filed against Jumawan et al. for the death of Rodolfo Magnaye. Magnaye was married to Presentacion Jumawan but they had been living

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 2

separately from each other. During the trial, Presentacion admitted her marriage to Rodolfo.

but only homicide or murder, as the case may be. In this case, Sabas is guilty of murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not Presentacion Jumawan-Magnaye should be convicted of Parricide

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.

HELD: No. Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the deceased is not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be convicted of murder only, qualified by abuse of superior strength. Although not alleged in the information, relationship as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against the Jumawan et al.. True, relationship is inherent in parricide, but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law aggravate the crime.

9.

6.

People vs Recote, 96 Phil 980 (1955)

FACTS: Ambrosio Recote alias “Bucio”, while struggling for the possession of the gun with his children, without intent to kill anyone, pulled the trigger of the gun which exploded and hit his wife who was approaching them. ISSUE: Whether or not Recote is guilty of parricide HELD: Yes. Recote is guilty of parricide through reckless imprudence. The deceased here is the legitimate spouse of Recote. 7.

People vs dela Cruz, 276 SCRA 352 (1997)

FACTS: Leonardo P. De La Cruz confronted his wife Violeta, "I heard you have a lover." She denied and it led to a violent quarrel between them. Leonardo boxed and slapped Violeta until she died. He was found guilty of parricide before the trial court and was ordered to indemnify his wife's heirs P50,000.00.

People vs Corazon Cortez, 59 Phil 568 (1934)

FACTS: Accused Corazon De Cortez is the wife of Angel De Cortez. Corazon killed Maria Bigay, the concubine of his husband. Corazon claims that she killed Bigay because she saw them in the act of adultery at Lucia Celis’ house. ISSUE: Whether or not De Cortez is entitled to the benefits of Article 247 of RPC HELD: Yes. De Cortez is guilty of homicide for killing Bigay, however, she killed her under the circumstances mentioned in article 247 of the RPC which is death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. She is to suffer 6 months and 1 day of destierro. Summary: The wife who kills or inflicts serious physical injuries on her husband and/or his concubine, under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 247, is entitled to the benefits of said article. 10. People vs Marquez, 53 Phil 260 (1929) FACTS: Guardiano Marquez admits that he killed his wife, Oliva Sumampong; but he alleges that he caught her in the act of adultery, and so took her life. He alleged that there was a man who jumped out of the window, and when he asked his wife why there was a man inside the house, she answered that there was no man. He claims exemption under Article 423 of the Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether or not Marquez can avail the benefits of exemption under Article 423 of the Penal Code

ISSUE: Whether or not indemnity is proper in parricide cases HELD: It depends. In this case before us where a husband who killed his wife and was ordered to indemnify his wife's heirs P50,000.00, the Supreme Court held that indemnity is proper. However, in the case of People vs Berang, in a case where the natural father killed his child, no indemnity was imposed, "considering that the accused, as the father, is the presumptive heir of the deceased."

HELD: No. In order that the Marquez might be entitled to the benefits of article 423 of the Penal Code, it was necessary for him to prove positively that he surprised his wife in the act of committing adultery. No other inference can be made from the wording of said article. The burden of proof, that he caught his wife in the very act of adultery, is upon the husband who alleges it by way of defense. 11. People vs Bituanan, 56 Phil 23 (1931)

8.

People vs Echaluce, 66 SCRA 221 (1975)

FACTS: The accused Bonifacia Echaluce is married to the victim Severiano Echaluce. Bonifacia, their son Jose Echaluce, and a stranger Jose Sabas killed Severiano. The trial court charged the three with parricide. Jose Sabas filed a motion to quash the information as against him on the ground that the facts charged with respect to him did not constitute the offense of parricide since he was not related in anyway to the victim as provided in Article 246 of the RPC.. ISSUE: Is Sabas guilty of parricide? HELD: No. A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of parricide

FACTS: Moro Bituanan and Mora Sabay were married according to Moro customs. They got divorced thru the same customs. After 20 days, Bituanan caught Sabay and Ali Sabpa sleeping on the same bed. Thereupon, Bituanan attacked Ali Sabpa and Sabay, killing Sabpa and wounding Sabay. The CFI found Bituanan guilty of the crime of murder. The accused contends that CFI's decision should be modified and he be exempt from according to Article 423 of the Penal Code which provides that "Any husband who, having surprised his wife in the act of adultery, shall kill her or her paramour in the act, or shall inflict any serious physical injuries upon either, shall suffer the penalty of destierro."

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 3

ISSUE: Whether or not Bituanan can avail the exempting circumstance HELD: No. The privilege given in Article 423 of the Penal Code (now Art. 247 of RPC) extends solely to the case of a husband who surprises his wife in the act of actual adultery, that is, actual carnal knowledge with her paramour. The provision is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another person. The phrase "in the act of committing sexual intercourse" does not include merely sleeping on the same bed. 12. People vs Gonzales, 69 Phil 66 (1931) FACTS: Accused Marciano Gonzales testified that he surprised his wife, Sixta Quilason, and Isabelo Evangelio in the act of adultery in two occasions. In the second occasion, he looked for her and found her with Isabelo near the toilet of his house in a place covered with underbush. When he saw them, his wife was rising up, while Isabelo, who was standing and buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his heels. Evangelio was able to escape. Then, Gonzales killed his wife. Gonzales contends that he was entitled to the privilege afforded by article 247 of the RPC. ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzales can avail the benefits of Art. 247 of RPC HELD: No. Art. 247 is not applicable as where the accused surprised his wife after the act, as when he saw her already rising up and the man buttoning his drawers. He did not surprise the supposed offenders in the very act of committing adultery. 13. U.S. vs Feliciano, 36 Phil 753 (1917) Note: This is an adultery case and not about Art. 247. FACTS: Margarita Feliciano, the accused, was married to the complainant Felix Atacador on 1911. Five years after, she left her husband and lived for three months with Pedro Velasquez in a rented house. The owner considered them to be man and wife. A photograph shows their intimate relations. A witness testified to having seen the accused and Velasquez in scant apparel and sleeping together. The woman and her paramour had the opportunity to satisfy their adulterous inclination. Felix filed a complaint against his wife Feliciano and Velasquez charging them with adultery. ISSUE: Whether or not acquittal of the man carries with it the acquittal of the woman in the offense of adultery

A husband to be justified, it is not necessary that he sees the carnal act being committed by his wife with his own eyes. It is enough that the circumstances show reasonably that the carnal act is being committed or has just been committed. 14. U.S. vs Alano, 32 Phil 383 (1915) FACTS: Teresa Marcelo, the wife of the accused Eufrasio Alano went out the house to buy medicine in the store. Teresa did not return immediately so Alano looked for her but couldn’t find her. Upon returning home, he observed a man lying upon a woman in a position to hold sexual intercourse with her in the grass, but they both hurriedly arose from the ground, startled by the noise made by the defendant in stumbling. Alano recognized the woman as his wife, and the man as Martin Gonzalez, who immediately started to run. Alano chased the man but couldn’t see him so when he returned home, he saw Teresa and killed her by stabbing. ISSUE: Whether or not Alano can avail the benefit of Article 423 of the Penal Code (now Art. 247 of RPC) HELD: Yes. This case fall within the scope of the provisions of Article 423 of the Penal Code, for it is reasonable to hold that the woman was killed immediately after she was caught in the commission of adultery, for not even an hour elapsed between the catching and the killing and the time that intervened was only that necessarily employed by the husband in the unsuccessful pursuit of his wife's paramour. 15. U.S. vs Vargas, et al., 2 Phil 194 (1903) FACTS: Simeon Alberto was attacked and assaulted by Mamerto Vargas et al., He died the next day. Vargas testified that, he found his wife and Alberto lying together. Vargas drew his bolo in which Alberto escaped but when Vargas pursued him, Alberto was killed. There was an evidence that the relations existing between Alberto and the wife of Vargas had been the subject of common talk in the barrio. ISSUE: Whether or not Article 423 of the Penal Code (now Article 247 of RPC) is applicable HELD: Yes. Where Vargas surprises his wife and her paramour, and the latter takes flight and is immediately pursued and killed, the killing is "in the act" within the meaning of Article 423. Penal Code, and the penalty should be destierro. In this case, the discovery, the escape, the pursuit, and the killing were all parts of one continuous act. 16. People vs Coricor, 79 Phil 672 (1947)

HELD: No. Where a man and a woman are charged in the same complaint with adultery, and on separate trial the case against the man is dismissed, the acquittal of the man does not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman. Moreover, the husband can testify against the wife in an adultery case because adultery comes within the exceptions of section 383, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, as an action for a crime committed by the wife against the husband.

FACTS: When he was approaching the room, Cirilo Coricor heard low voices. He looked through a hole into the room and saw Pedro Lego on top of the wife of Coricor who was naked from the chest down. Then he unsheathed his bolo, slowly went up passing through the kitchen door, and as he was approaching the door of the room, Lego came out and he gave him a thrust. Upon being wounded, Lego jumped out of the window, but the accused pursued and killed him.

Ruling in the book of Reyes (ang facts sa case dili jud related sa Art. 247)

ISSUE: Whether or not the benefits under Article 247 of the RPC is applicable

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 4

HELD: Yes. Art. 247 was applied and the accused was sentenced to destierro only for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of banishment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000. 17. People vs Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987) FACTS: Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny, the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, had illicit relationship. It started while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar exam. On July 15, 1984, upon reaching home, the accused found his wife and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When both noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. Abarca who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away. Abarca went to look for a firearm. About an hour later, he proceeded to the "mahjong session" and found Koh playing. He fired at Kingsley Koh several times which led to his death. ISSUE: Whether or not Article 247 of the RPC is applicable HELD: Yes. Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The RPC, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case. Article 248. Murder. 18. People vs Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14, 2002 FACTS: Gerry Orbino saw accused Zenaida Manalad stab Herman Miclat, Jr. twice. The victim later on died. The victim’s daughter testified that one week prior to the killing, Diega Manalad approached her and said, "Antang, wala ka ng nanay, mawawalan ka pa ng tatay." The trial court found her guilty of murder. It appreciated the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed by Manalad was murder HELD: No. The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Orbino did not testify on the events that led to the stabbing. Hence, there is no showing whether the attack was swift and unexpected; or whether the victim did not expect the attack or gave the slightest provocation. In order to appreciate treachery as a modifying circumstance in a continuous aggression, it must be shown to have been present at the inception of the attack. Also, the attendance of evident premeditation was not proved. In order to appreciate this circumstance, the following must be shown: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In the absence of proof of the events immediately preceding the killing, the decision and determination to kill the victim cannot be established. Thus, the crime committed is Homicide, penalized under Article 249 of the RPC. 19. U.S. vs Baluyot, 40 Phil 385 FACTS: Accused Jose Baluyot ran for Governor of Bataan but lost to the deceased Conrado Lerma. After 2 years of such defeat, Baluyot encountered series of unfortunate events, which he attributed Lerma having played a significant part of such. An assault was begun suddenly and unexpectedly by the firing of a pistol by the Jose Baluyot at his victim, Governor Conrado Lerma, who was unarmed. When Lerma attempted to flee, Baluyot pursued him. Lerma driven to take refuge in a closet, where he called aloud for help. Baluyot then tried" to force open the door but was unable to do so. Thereafter, he fired a shot at the door and the bullet passed through the panel of the door and, entering the head of the deceased, produced death. Lerma died 2 hours after. Baluyot was charged with murder by the CFI of Bataan, qualified by: (1) Treachery, (2) Evident premeditation; and (3) crime committed against a public authority in discharge of his duty. ISSUE: What crime was committed? HELD: Where the accused killed the provincial governor while engaged in the performance of his official duties. It is a complex crime of direct assault with murder. Where the accused entered the office of the provincial governor where the latter was engaged in the exercise of his official functions and slew him under conditions constituting murder, it is held that two crimes were committed, namely, murder and assault upon a person in authority, and that the penalty prescribed for murder should be imposed in its maximum degree, in accordance with section 89 of the Penal Code. The qualifying circumstance of alevosía (treachery) essential to the crime of murder was found to be present in the case at bar not only because of the sudden and unexpected manner in which the fatal assault with a deadly weapon was begun

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 5

against the defenseless victim, but also because of the peculiar conditions under which the offense was finally consummated. 20. People vs Salamillo, 404 SCRA 211 (2003) FACTS: Brothers Liberato and Julian Solamillo, and two others were armed with weapons, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, hacked Alexander Guiroy, a proprietor of Liberty Bakery and Grocery, They forcibly took the cash and other personal belongings of the victim. The trial court convicted them of the crime of Robbery with Homicide since the commission of which was attended by the following: committed by a band; with evident premeditation; treachery; and with deliberate cruelty. Solamillo brothers contend that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. Julian contends that he cannot be held liable for homicide because he only took money but did not participate in the victim’s killing. ISSUE: Whether or not Solamillo brothers are guilty of robbery with homicide HELD: Yes. In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. In this case, the prosecution amply established the said elements. Julian Solamillo’s contention that he cannot be held liable for homicide because he only took money but did not participate in the victim’s killing is untenable. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there is a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery shall also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 6

ANDOY 21. People vs Gregorio, 412 SCRA 90

RULING: Yes, they should be held liable for 3 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder.

FACTS: At around 10 in the evening, Juanito Regachio was standing in front of a store when Juancho Osorio alighted from a tricycle and immediately shot the former but the he was able to parry Osorio’s hand. Regachio then ran to the alley towards his house. Meanwhile, Mateo Gregorio came out from a nearby alley and fired his gun in the air. He approached Osorio and asked, “Nasaan na?” Osorio and Mateo followed Regachio to the alley. Thereafter, gunshots were heard. The 2 came out from the alley still holding their guns. Earlier that day, Alberto Gregorio and Regachio had a heated altercation after they came from a mahjongan. Alberto challenged Regachio, “Kung gusto mo, tapusin na natin ito.” RTC found Osorio and Mateo guilty.

Their acts undoubtedly showed unanimity in design, intent, and execution of the attack on the part of Caraig and his coassailants. They performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design to bring about the death of the victims. Conspiracy among Caraig and his co-assailants was thus established with moral certainty. The attack upon the victims was likewise attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

ISSUE: Are they guilty of Murder? 23. People vs Avendano, 306 SCRA 309 RULING:No. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently established by the prosecution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. 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. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that this qualifying circumstance was consciously sought by the assailants. The actual killing of Regachio occurred in an alley and was no longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no way of determining whether the elements of treachery and abuse of superior strength were met.

22. People vs Caraig, 400 SCRA 67 FACTS: At past midnight inside a beerhouse, Donato Caraig, then member of Phil. Constabulary, confronted Diaz, Raagas, Castro, and Agustin asking them if they were military men. They did not answer. A rumble or fight suddenly ensued between them. It was a brief scuffle. Caraig then ran back to the beerhouse. Diaz, et al, rode on a taxi. They were chased, however, by a white car, which eventually blocked the taxi. Caraig, Renato Laxamana, and Rolando Laomoc alighted from the said car. Each of them held a .45 caliber gun, which they simultaneously upon Diaz, et al. While the hail of bullets went on, Diaz played dead. He then heard somebody utter: “Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan.” The trial court appreciated treachery and conspiracy among Caraig, et al in the commission of the crime. ISSUE: Are they guilty of murder?

FACTS: Jeffre Castillo suddenly awakened when he heard a commotion. However, by the time he woke up, the room was very dark because the lamp was already turned off. He heard his mother shout, “Dikong, tulungan mo kami.” He immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows and tried to hide. Then, there was silence. Then he heard somebody going downstairs. His brother Melvin lit the lamp, while Jeffre stayed where he was. He then heard the person downstairs going up again. He saw through his blanket that the person had come that was when he distinctly heard his Kuya Melvin say, “Kuya Willie, tama na, tama na!”. That was just before Melvin was killed. Jeffre recalled that someone coughed and he recognized the cough as that of his Kuya Willie. He recognized it because he had heard a similar cough on several occasions in the past when Willie frequented their house. He remained where he was until Willieeft. 24. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463 25. People vs Felipe, 418 SCRA 146 26. Luces vs People, 395 SCRA 524 27. People vs Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003 28. People vs Alcodia, 398 SCRA 673 29. People vs Nicolas, 400 SCRA 217 30. People vs Abut, 401 SCRA 498 31. People vs Almoguera, 415 SCRA 647 32. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463 33. People vs Mantes, 368 SCRA 661 34. People vs dela Cruz, 416 SCRA 24 35. People vs Dizon, 558 SCRA 395 [October 10, 2008] 36. People vs Alfon, 399 SCRA 64 37. People vs Samaro, 570 SCRA 449 [November 3, 2008] 38. People vs Guevarra, 570 SCRA 288 [October 29, 2008] 39. People vs Cando, 334 SCRA 331 40. People vs Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 7

MABBORANG 41. People vs Lobingas, et al., December 17, 2002 [394 SCRA 170] Facts: Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teoderico Mante were accused of murder. On February 1996, they mauled the 76 years old, Felix Taylaran in Mante’s store. They inflicted injuries in the vital parts of Taylaran’s body, which resulted his death. Issue: Whether or not the accused are liable for murder Held: No, they are liable for homicide. To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the male-factors to take advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’ deliberate intent to do so. There was no clear indication in this case that the Lobrigas and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to consummate the crime. Consequently, the crime committed by accused-appellant was only homicide. 42. People vs Delim, 396 SCRA 386 Facts: Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo Bantas, the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the surname Delim after he was “adopted” by the father of Marlon, Manuel and Robert. One evening, Marlon, Robert and Ronald suddenly barged into the house and closed the door. Each of the three intruders was armed with a short handgun. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto. Days later, Modesto’s body was found beneath some bushes, already decomposing with multiple gunshot and stab wounds. Only 3 of 6 were apprehended by the authorities. The accused argued that they are not criminally liable for the death of Modesto but only for kidnapping. Issue: Whether or not they are liable for kidnapping or murder Held: They are liable for murder. Specific intent must be alleged in he information and proved by the prosecution. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force that is out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. In this case, it is evident on

the face of the Information that the specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him. Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof. 43. People vs Hugo, 410 SCRA 62 Facts: On August 1997, Remegio Talon with his cousin Joel Talon was on their way home, when they meet Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy. Ernesto was walking along the left side of the road, while Rudy and Lorenzo took the right side. Ernesto came face to face with Remegio. Suddenly Ernesto hacked Remegio twice with a bolo, first on the forearm and then on the right shoulder, causing the latter to fall to the ground. Ernesto quickly ran away, and his bolo slipped from his hand. Remegio then told Joel to run after Ernesto. Joel promptly gave a chase. Though wounded, Remegio stood up to follow them. Lorenzo and Rudy also chased Remegio and Joel. The prosecution failed to prove the acts of Rudy and Lorenzo Hugo as evidenced by the discrepancies in Joel’s affidavits. On the other hand, Joel was consistent in his sworn statements and testimony in court that the assault was sudden, unexpected, and unprovoked. There was no exchange of words between the victim and Ernesto at any time before the actual attack.

Issue: Whether or not Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy are liable for murder Held: NO, only Ernesto Hugo is liable for murder. Lorenzo and Rudy were acquitted. The elements for murder are: that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 and the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In this case, Ernesto committed all this acts, with an aggravating circumstance of treachery. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be appreciated, the size, age and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. The presumption of innocence enjoyed by Lorenzo and Rudy was not overcome by the prosecution, which has the burden to prove that they conspired with Ernesto in killing Remegio. Jurisprudence is replete that conspiracy must be proved as clearly as the commission of the offense itself. Hence, Rudy and Lorenzo were acquitted.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 8

44. People vs Casitas, Jr., 397 SCRA 382 Facts: On 1998, Haide Bombales-Marbella was found dead in the house of Mario Chan, where she is a caretaker. During the incident, the appellant, Jose Casitas was seen inside the compound. Nemesio Capiz saw Jose Casitas jumped over the fence with his shirt and pants with blood. The next day, a warrant of arrest was served. Upon serving the warrant, he ran off and was shot on the leg. He was brought to the police station, later detained in Quezon City Jail. Issue: Whether or not Jose Casitas is guilty of murder Held: NO, he is only guilty of homicide because to qualify a killing to murder, the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself—it cannot be deduced from mere supposition. The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, when the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused—to the exclusion of all others—as the guilty person. The RTC qualified the killing to murder by appreciating the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Settled is the rule that such circumstance is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, superior strength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime.

45. People vs Roxas, 410 SCRA 451

An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. In this instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape from appellant, an armed “hulk of a man,” 5’7” in height, and around 33 years of age, when she was senselessly shot at close range. 46. People vs Aliben, 398 SCRA 255 Facts: On October 1997, Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas and Ronnie Nicolas was accused of killing Juanito P. Bongon, Sr. Romeo Barsaga saw Bonifacio strike Juanito with a bolo and Nicolas and Ronnie hitting him with pieces of wood. The doctor testified that based on his post-mortem examination, that the victim died immediately after sustaining the injuries on the right side of his head.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder Held: Yes, they are liable for murder. The attendant circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength qualifies the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code: ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

Facts: On 1996, from a distance of barely four to five meters, Joelyn Puno could see Lorna Puno running away from Roger Roxas. Roxas, apparently drunk, had no clothes from waist up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun. Joelyn promptly closed the door but appellant was able to kick it open. Joelyn, her forehead hit by the door, was pushed aside. Roxas, grabbed Lorna’s bag, opened it and, apparently not finding what he could have been looking for, hurled the bag to the floor. Joelyn tried to hold the hand of Roger Roxas but he pushed her hand away. Appellant then shot Lorna with a caliber .45 gun with its muzzle just two feet away from Lorna’s face. Lorna fell on the floor with half of her body outside the door and the other half inside the house. Three days after, Lorna died. Issue: Whether or not Roger Roxas is liable for murder

Superiority in number does not necessarily mean abuse of superior strength. It is still necessary to prove that the accused cooperated and took advantage of their superior strength. In the instant case, the 3 accused were all armed. Ronnie Nicolas and Diosdado Nicolas were armed with a piece of wood while Bonifacio Aliben was armed with a bolo and they helped one another in assaulting the victim who was alone. Furthermore, the victim at the time of his death was 52 years old while appellant Ronnie Nicolas at the time of the incident was 23 years old; Diosdado Nicolas was 29 years old and Bonifacio Aliben was 41 years old. There is a wide gap of the age between the victim and the accused, showing that the victim was much older than the three (3) accused who are younger and physically stronger 47. People vs Astudillo, 401 SCRA 723

Held: Yes, Roxas is liable for murder.

FACTS: Brothers Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to house of Alberto Damian who was celebrating the eve of his birthday. Clarence greeted Alberto and thereafter asked the

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 9

victim, Silvestre Aquino, who was one of the visitors, to go with him. Silvestre acceded and the two walked towards Floras' Store, where they were later joined by Crisanto and Hilario. While at the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument.Prosecution eyewitnesses Manuel Bareng and Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11 years of age, respectively, were selling balut in front of Floras' Store. They saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and Hilario held him by the wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle. Silvestre was rushed to the Municipal Health Office of Bangued, Abra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Issue: Whether or not they are liable for murder Held: Yes, they are liable for murder because the killing was qualified with treachery. The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult. However, it is clear that treachery qualified the killing of the deceased to murder, considering that the appellants deliberately restrained the victim so as to enable one of them to successfully deliver the stab blows without giving the latter a chance to defend himself or to retaliate. 48. People vs Comadre, 461 SCRA 366 [Bar question 2008] Facts: Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking grioup) were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father (Jaime). As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano (appellants) walking. The three stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly throw a hand grenade, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Drinking group were hit by shrapnel (fragments of the grenade) and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the Hospital. However, Robert died before reaching the hospital. Short facts: [The accused dropped a hand grenade inside a house, killing one and causing 4 others to suffer shrapnel wounds on their bodies.] Issue: Whether or not the accused should be punished under the RPC or under PD 1866 Held: The accused must be punished under the Revised Penal Code.

When the illegally possessed explosives are used to commit any of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code, which result in the death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866, but it shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance. The accused was found guilty of the complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48, and the penalty for the most serious crime (murder) shall be imposed. 49. People vs Cañete, 410 SCRA 544 Facts: Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the accused, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod and Tundag immediately looked in the direction where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo, Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad all surnamed Cañete, shooting at Tumayao who slumped to the ground. Apparently not satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him. On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the head. Quimod, who was ten meters behind the victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayao’s wife. On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come to the aid of Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran back to the wedding party while hearing more gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went back to the crime scene where he saw Tumayao’s lifeless body on the road Issue: Whether or not they are liable for murder?

Held: Yes, they are liable for murder. We likewise agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked.

In this case, the events narrated by the eyewitnesses point to the fact that Tumayao could not have been aware that he would be attacked by appellants. There was no opportunity for Tumayao to defend himself as appellants, suddenly and without any provocation, fired their guns at him, one after the other.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 10

Saving the authorities the trouble and expense for his search and capture, and freely placing himself at their disposal, the accused should be given the favor of a mitigated penalty for his voluntary surrender; The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is personal, and can only be appreciated in favor of the accused who surrendered voluntarily. 50. People vs Baldogo, 396 SCRA 31 Facts: On February 1996, the accused Gonzalo Baldogo and Edgar Bermas who were both serving time for the crime Murder at the Iwahig Penal Colony, were employed as domestic helpers by Julio Camacho Sr. One evening while their master was away, they killed his son Jorge and kidnapped his daughter Julie whom they took to the mountains and detained her for more than five days. Issue: What are the crime/s committed by Baldogo Held: Baldogo committed two separate crimes, which are murder and kidnapping. There is no evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained first by Baldogo and Bermas before he was killed. The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or serious illegal detention.

Whether or not Clamania is liable for murder Held: Yes, as the killing was qualified by treachery. Nocturnity is absorbed by treachery by which the killing is qualified; there is no proof that Canusod Island was uninhabited, and the disemboweling of the deceased was not an unnecessary mutilation or deliberate and wanton augmentation of the suffering of the offended parties. For when the disemboweling was effected, the victims were already dead, and the operation was conceived solely for the purpose of facilitating the sinking of the cadavers and preventing their discovery. 52. People vs Alban, et al., 245 SCRA 549 Facts: The facts of this case are based mainly on the testimony of the prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Joseph Salinas, thirteenyear old son of the victim Roberto Salinas. On July 1991, he saw his father, Roberto Salinas, being attacked by four men. Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father while the other two men restrained his hands. The testimony of Joseph was straightforward, coherent and convincing. He was able clearly to describe the manner in which his father was killed and he positively identified Robert and Demetrio as among the four malefactors responsible for his father’s death. Issue: Whether or not Alban is liable for murder

Baldogo is guilty of murder, but it is not qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time that he actually commits it—the prosecution must adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected. Instead, in light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the killing of Jorge was qualified by treachery. When Jorge was killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14 years old. Hence, Baldogo committed murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

51. People vs Clamania, 85 Phil 350 Facts: On September 1942, Apolinario Inciso and Modesto Delantar were forced by the Fausto Clamania at the point of a revolver to accompany him to the beach. At the beach they saw Juan Grafil and Apolinario Gahoy in a boat with their hands tied behind their backs. With Apolinario Inciso at the helm, Delantar and the accused rowed the boat with. the victims on board to Can-usod Island. There, Grafil and Gahoy were taken ashore and beaten to death by Fausto Clamania with an oar. After Grafil and Gahoy were killed the accused ripped their abdomens to let out the bowels, attached stones as weights to the bodies, tied the bodies to the craft, and then hauled them to deep water where they were released. Issue:

Ruling: Yes, Alban is liable for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that questions regarding the competency of a child to testify rest primarily with the trial judge who sees the proposed witness, observes his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim.

53. U.S. vs Campo, 23 Phil 369 Facts: Patricio Campo took the life of one Isidro Palejo. Campo was convicted of the crime of homicide by the Trial Court. However, it was appealed that it should be murder, as

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 11

defined by the Penal Code as the unlawful taking of the life of another, other than parricide, when the act is marked by any of the following qualifying aggravating circumstances: (1) With treachery ( alevosia); (2) for a price or promise of reward; (3) by means of an inundation, fire, or poison; deliberately and inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the offended party. Issue: Whether or not Campo is liable for murder Ruling:

On 1973, VALERIO, and De la Cruz together with the new boy went swimming. When they reached a depth of four feet, Celestino de la Cruz who was at the back of the boy hit the latter’s head with a piece of iron. Castro was at the left side of the boy while VALERIO was at the boy’s right side. De la Cruz then held the boy by the neck and submerged him in water. VALERIO and Castro left De la Cruz and the boy in the water. Issue: Whether or not Epifanio Valerio, Jr. is liable for murder Held: YES, he is liable for murder.

No, Campo is not liable for murder but only for homicide. The Court held that an accused person cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused person cannot be convicted in the courts of these Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. In this case, since alevosia (treachery) is not expressly charged in the complaint, it was improper for the court to take it into consideration in imposing the prescribed penalty for the homicide of which the appellant was convicted.

Killing of child is murder and treachery even if manner of attack is not shown. Treachery, as alleged in the Information, must be considered qualifying and must be appreciated against the accused. The killing of a child is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown. The qualifying circumstances of treachery or “alevosia” exists in the commission of the crime of murder when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death. Also, evident premeditation present in the case at bar. In the case at bar, from the time the insurance was taken in November, 1972, and even after the boy insured got lost, the culprits did not relent in the pursuit of their scheme for money culminating in the killing of the substitute boy and the filing of a death claim with the Cardinal Life Insurance Corporation.

54. People vs Valerio, 112 SCRA 231 55. People vs Gavarra, 155 SCRA 327 Facts: The case revolves around a plot of murder of an eight-year old boy for insurance. Sometime in August 1972, Amador Castro brought home a boy whom he met in a Pantranco bus during a flood. “I will live with you to take care of the cows” said the boy. On November 8, 1972, accused VALERIO, one Celestino de la Cruz and Amador Castro, while at the latter’s yard at Bo. Tamayo, San Carlos City, conferred about obtaining life insurance on the boy living with Castro, who would be subsequently killed so that the policy proceeds could be “divided 50-50”. Based on their plan and upon instructions of Valerio, Castro had the boy baptized as his child, examined by Dr. Romero on whose behalf an application for life insurance had been filed. Herminigildo Solar, agent of Cardinal Life Insurance Corporation approved the application by issuing Insurance Policy No. 727 of P 20,000 in favor of "Amador Castro, Jr." with spouses Castro as parents and beneficiaries. For the payment of the premiums, de la Cruz, Valerio and Castro contributed. The insured boy left the Castro household after losing money, through gambling. Castro then informed de la Cruz and Valerio about the departure of the boy but the latter told him that they will substitute a boy for him. Valerio then gave Amador Castro a boy, who began staying with the Castros. Thereafter, Valerio, Castro and de la Cruz planned the killing of the new boy at Lido beach, Cavite. Valerio and de la Cruz told Castro that if the plan were to be executed in Pangasinan, they might get caught.

Facts: On August 1972, Celerina Leyco, nicknamed “Baby”, an eight year old, Grade 1 pupil, was sent by her elder sister Elizabeth Leyco Gabelo to fetch water from a well near the house of one David Garcia about 100 meters away. On that same afternoon, Fe Garcia, wife of David Garcia, while answering the call of nature near her house, saw Celerina pass by on her way to the well carrying an empty pail. About five minutes later, while looking around, she saw the accused, Dominador Gavarra, up a coconut tree some 35 to 40 meters from the path taken by the victim. Thereafter, Fe sat on the stairs of her house and she again saw Celerina on her way home, carrying the pail filled with water. After about an hour of waiting for Celerina, Elizabeth Gabelo got worried and wondered why she had not yet returned. After informing them that Celerina could not be found, the three of them started searching for Celerina along the path taken by the latter. While searching thus, they came upon the Dominador sitting on a stone inside a clearing cultivated by him. And it was there at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 20, 1972 that Bitonio discovered the lifeless body of a little girl, whom Elizabeth Gabelo and her husband Eleno identified as that of Celerina Leyco. The spot where the body was found was only about five arms length from the stone where Dominador Gavarra was seen sitting when approached by Eleno Gabelo the previous afternoon.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 12

Issue: Whether or not Gavarra is liable for murder Held: Yes, Gavarra is liable for the crime of murder qualified with treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength. The court held that the only crime the accused can be found guilty of committing is murder. It is clear that in killing an 8year old defenseless girl, he did so with treachery, taking advantage of his superior strength. He is therefore guilty of murder. In view of the abolition of the death penalty under Section 19, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty that may be imposed for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Since in the instant case, no aggravating or mitigating circumstances have been shown or proven, the penalty that should be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the minimum term to which the accused may be sentenced should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., reclusion temporal in its medium and minimum period. 56. People vs Lopez, 157 SCRA 304 Facts: On January 31, 1982, about 7:30 p.m, on their way home, Adelina and her husband went ahead. While the others were outside in front of Encounter waiting for a ride, all of a sudden Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale appeared and attacked Jaime Cano. Appellant Roberto Ansale hit Cano on the neck with his balisong. Unarmed and sensing danger Cano with his other companions started to run and disappeared. The assailants however were able to gang up on Jaime Gloria who was just beside and about three (3) arms length away from Cano. Appellants Lopez and Ansale took turns in stabbing Gloria in various parts of his body.

Issue: Whether or not Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale are liable for murder.

Held: Yes, they are liable for murder. The general denial by the accused of the stabbing incident cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The general denial by Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale is limp. It is highly improbable that LOPEZ would not have known of the stabbing incident immediately near the parking area that he was tending. Obviously, he was not telling the truth. Neither was the Manager of the Beer House whom the Trial Court found to be “evasive, talkative and pretending to be smart.” Moreover, such denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by prosecution witnesses. Thus, Alex Pilapil, who works as a parking boy in the compound of the Encounter Disco, and who happened to be eating at the

time of the incident, saw the stabbing of the two victims from a distance of four (4) armslengths. Three other witnesses, Jaime Cano, Federico Malinao and Basilisa Polinar, identified accused-appellants as the assailants. Alex Pilapil, Federico Malinao and Basilisa Polinar all gave written statements to the police in the early morning of February 1, 1982 soon after the incident (Exhibits “C”, “D” & “1”). Jaime Cano, himself a victim, testified that while running away and when he was about three (3) armslengths distant, he looked back and saw accusedappellants stab the victim Gloria with their balisongs.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 13

Article 249. Homicide. 57. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398 FACTS: On August 1942, there was a heated argument between Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario and Timoteo Penesa because Santiago refused that Rosario and Timoteo will live in another place. Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his bolo and assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro, the eldest son of Rosario, who tried to prevent another blow upon Santiago and had made a remark similar to that of Santiago before the latter came to the house, was also assaulted by Timoteo. At this juncture, Rosario went down through the stairway, preceded by Santiago. Crescencio and Timoteo grappled for the possession of the bolo and both fell to the floor. A brother of Rosario appeared upon the scene and snatched the bolo and a dagger from the hands of Timoteo. As a result of the assault upon Santiago Cerrado, two wounds were inflicted upon him, one on the left forearm and another under the left axilla. They were not serious. Issue: Whether or not Timoteo Penesa is liable for homicide Held: NO, in the absence of proof as to the period of the offended party’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance, is slight physical injuries against Santiago Cerrado, as provided for in article 266 of the Revised Penal Code; and against Crescencio Doro is serious physical injuries.

When he went to the house of Rosario early in the morning of 81 August, it was not with the intention to kill anybody, for he went there to entreat Rosario Aguillón to live with him in another house. The bolo with which the appellant inflicted the wounds upon Santiago Cerrado and Crescencio Doro was one ordinarily used by farm laborers. The dagger was carried for selfdefense. The wounds inflicted upon the offended parties by the appellant were caused indiscriminately and not deliberately. Appellant’s purpose in going to the house, and not the kind of weapons he carried, nor the parts of the victims’ bodies on which the wounds were inflicted indiscriminately, is indicative and determinative of his intent.

58. Mondragon vs People, G.R.No. L-17666, June 30, 1966 FACTS: On July 1954, Serapion Nacionales was opening the dike of his ricefield to drain the water therein and prepare the ground for planting the next day, he heard a shout from afar telling him not to open the dike, Nacionales continued opening the dike, and the same voice shouted again, ‘Don’t you dare open the dike.’ When he looked up, he saw Isidoro Mondragon coming towards him. Nacionales informed appellant that he was opening the dike because he would plant the next morning. Without much ado, Mondragon tried

to hit the Nacionales who dodged the blow. Thereupon, appellant drew his bolo and struck Nacionales on different parts of his body. Nacionales backed out, unsheathed his own bolo, and hacked appellant on the head and forearm and between the middle and ring fingers in order to defend himself. Mondragon retreated, and Nacionales did not pursue him but went home instead. Issue: Whether or not Mondragon is liable for homicide Held: Mondragon is not guilty of homicide because when intent to kill was not manifest, offense is physical injuries. The facts brought out by the decision appealed f rom indicate that the petitioner had no intention to kill the offended party. Thus, petitioner started the assault on the offended party by just giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted on the offended party were of slight nature, indicating no homicidal urge on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner retreated and went away when the offended party started hitting him with a bolo, thereby indicating that if the petitioner had intended to kill the offended party he would have held his ground and kept on hitting the offended party with his bolo to kill him. The element of intent to kill not having them fully established, and considering that the injuries suffered by the offended party were not necessarily fatal and could be healed in less than 30 days, the offense committed by the petitioner is only that of less serious physical injuries. The intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of f rustrated or attempted homicide, said element must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488). 59. U.S. vs Abiog, 37 Phil 143 Facts: The deceased Anacleto Cudiamat coming upon the VICENTE ABIOG and LUIS ABIOG cleaning a caua said to them, "What of it if you throw away the water as I also can get water as easily as you can?" Vicente Abiog indignant at this allusion replied. "Do you want a fight? Wait there." Immediately proceeding to the house, Vicente procured a revolver and returned to the field. A brother of V. Marcelino Abiog, attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was killed (probably accidentally) for his pains. Loading the revolver anew, Vicente pointed it at Cudiamat wounding him in the stomach. The wife of Cudiamat tried to succor her husband, but the other brother Luis Abiog stopped her and attacked Cudiamat with a bolo. Cudiamat's nephew, Urbano Banastas, was also wounded. While the points indicated stand out sharply in the record, they fail adequately to portray the passing of events or the words spoken during this affray. Issue: Whether or not they are liable for homicide

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 14

Held: Yes, they are liable for homicide. That both Vicente and Luis are liable for the death of Cudiamat. As the spark of life went out, each wound was a contributing cause. Although a man can not be killed twice, two persons, acting independently, may contribute to his death and each be guilty of a homicide. Drop by drop the life current went out from both wounds, and at the very instant of death the gunshot wound was contributing to the event. // the throat cutting had been by a third person, unconnected with the defendant, he might be guilty; for, although a man cannot be killed twice, two persons, acting independently, may contribute to his death and each be guilty of a homicide. A person dying is still in life, and may be killed, but if he is dying from a wound given by another both may properly be said to have contributed to his death." Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide. 60. U.S. vs Poblete, 10 Phil 582 Facts: On May 1907, Gliceria Dolac, a young woman, 19 years of age was walking in the direction of the church, for the purpose of hearing mass, accompanied by her aunt, Toribia Unson, and another young woman, Gliceria Velgrado. When nearing the parish house she was unexpectedly met by Candido Poblete, who seized her with his left hand and immediately attacked her with an open penknife, inflicting several wounds in her chest, back, sides, arms, and thigh, and although she fell to the ground senseless upon being cut in the breast with the penknife, Poblete continued to attack her; as the two women who accompanied Dolac promptly attempted to render assistance. Poblete with the same knife also attacked Toribia Unson who was crying out for help, wounding her in the forehead. Issue: What is the crime committed Held: The crime committed was FRUSTRATED MURDER. When the aggressor of a young woman of 19 years of age inflicts upon her, with a cutting weapon, sixteen wounds more or less serious, for the purpose and with the criminal intent of causing her death, at the same time doing everything which should naturally have resulted in the death of the assaulted party, although the same did not take place for reasons which did not depend on the will of the aggressor, who continued to attack her notwithstanding the fact that she was lying senseless on the ground, and only refrained when he believed her to be dead, and that the act which he had committed treacherously and with perfect safety to himself had been consummated, the crime thus committed is unquestionably that of frustrated murder.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 15

NENARIA 61. U.S. vs Villanueva, 2 Phil 62 Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. 62. U.S. vs Tandoc, 40 Phil 954 63. People vs Corpuz, 102 SCRA 674 Article 252. Physical Injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. NO CASES Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide. NO CASES Article 254. Discharge of firearms. 64. People vs Agbuya, 57 Phil 238 65. People vs Kalalo, et al., 59 Phil 715 66. U.S. vs Sabio, 2 Phil 485 67. U.S. vs Samonte, 10 Phil 642 Article 255. Infanticide. 68. People vs Jaca and Rasalan, 55 Phil 952 69. U.S. vs Vedra, 12 Phil 96 70. U.S. vs Aquino, 34 Phil 813 Article 256. Intentional abortion. 71. U.S. vs Boston, 12 Phil 134 Article 257. Unintentional abortion. 72. U.S. vs Jeffrey, 15 Phil 391 73. People vs Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401 74. People vs Villanueva, 242 SCRA 47 Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents. NO CASES Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortive. NO CASES Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. Article 261. Challenging to a duel. 75. People vs Tacomoy, G.R.No. L-4798, July 16, 1951 Article 262. Mutilation. 76. U.S. vs Esparcia, 36 Phil 840 Article 263. Serious physical injuries. 77. U.S. vs Villanueva, 31 Phil 412 78. U.S. vs Santos, 17 Phil 87 79. People vs Hernandez, 94 Phil 49 80. People vs Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206 81. People vs Balubar, 60 Phil 699

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 16

LABENDIA 82. U.S. vs Bugarin, 15 Phil 189 FACTS: The accused, Antonio Bugarin, upon being caught by Miguel Guillermo in the act of stealing a carabao, struck Guillermo with his bolo, severing the index and middle fingers of Guillermo’s right hand. As a result, Guillermo’s right hand was rendered useless for work in the fields, his usual occupation. The CFI sentenced Bugarin under the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 416 of the Penal Code to imprisonment for five years. ISSUE: Whether or not the sentence imposed was proper.

HELD: No. When Penesa went to the house of Rosario, it was not with the intention to kill anybody. The crime committed by Penesa against Crescencio Doro is serious physical injuries, for, although the physician who had treated him did not state in his testimony the time during which the wounds would heal or the period during which the offended party would be incapacitated to perform his ordinary or usual work, nevertheless the evidence shows that the wound inflicted on the 31st of August upon Crescencio Doro in the left palm affecting two fingers, 3 inches long and from 1/2 to 3/4 inch deep, was not yet cured on the day of the trial held on 9 October 1942, or that the wound did not heal within 30 days.

HELD: No. The penalty should be under paragraph 3 of article 416 of the Penal Code. Under paragraph 2 of said article 416, a person convicted of lesiones graves is punished with prision correccional in its medium and maximum degrees if, as a result of such injuries, the person assaulted should have lost an eye or any principal member, or should have been hindered in the use thereof, or rendered unable to pursue the occupation in which, up to that time, he had been habitually engaged. Under paragraph 3 of article 416 of the Penal Code, a person convicted of the crime of lesiones graves should be punished with prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees, if the party injured was disfigured or lost a member, not a principal one, or the member was thereby rendered useless. The penalty shall be two years of prision correccional.

Article 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. 84. U.S. vs Chiong Songco, 18 Phil 459 FACTS: Chiong Songco threw the contents of a bottle of sulphuric acid into the face and on the body of the victim, inflicting wounds which resulted in the illness of the victim for more than thirty days. The trial court found the defendant guilty of the crime of lesiones defined in subsection 4 of article 416 read together with article 417 of the Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is correct. HELD:

83. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 403

No. The infliction of injuries (lesiones) by throwing mordant chemicals or poisons in the face or upon the body is not one of the offenses defined and penalized in article 416 of the Code.

FACTS:

Article 265. Less serious physical injuries.

Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived as husband and wife. The victim, Crescencio Doro is the eldest son of Rosario by her late husband. Due to continuous wrangles between Timoteo and Rosario’s children by her late husband, both agreed to part. Timoteo left the house on 30 August 1942. The following day, Timoteo returned to the house and asked Rosario to live with him in another place. The request was refused. Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario, came to the house and, upon seeing Timoteo, asked the latter why he was there after they had agreed to live apart. Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his bolo and assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro who tried to prevent them, was also assaulted by Timoteo. Crescencio and Timoteo grappled for the possession of the bolo. Wounds were inflicted upon Crescencio Doro. In the left palm affecting two fingers, a wound 3 inches long and from 1/2 to 3/4 inch deep, which on the day of the trial, was still bandaged because it was not yet healed. Upon this evidence the trial court found Timoteo Penesa guilty of frustrated homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of frustrated homicide was proper.

85. U.S. vs Trinidad, 4 Phil 152 FACTS: Trinidad, with a kitchen knife, inflicted a wound on Margarita Maria Pando, in the right scapular region of her body. This wound necessitated medical attendance for two days and prevented her from attending to her ordinary labors for a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The cause of the aggression seems to be the scolding that Margarita gave Trinidad, who was her cook, for having broken a piece of china ware. The lower court charged Trinidad the crime of attempted homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is correct.

HELD: No. The facts in the case are only constitutive of the crime of lesiones menos graves, provided for and punished by article 418 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the wound inflicted upon Margarita Pando did not cause her any sickness nor incapacity to work for more than thirty days.

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 17

The first and most essential element constitutive of the crime of attempted homicide is the intention on the part of the guilty party to cause the death of the person attacked. There is nothing tending to show in a plain and conclusive manner that Trinidad had formally made up his mind to kill Margarita Pando when he assaulted her with a knife. It is a well-known principle of criminal law that when a particular act constitutes a crime by itself, and is separately and distinctly punished by law, like that of lesiones, it is not possible in law to qualify the act as a greater offense unless well-defined circumstances should show beyond reasonable doubt that the intention of the accused was to commit an offense of greater criminal importance. 86. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398 Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. 87. People vs Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431 88. People vs Manolong, 85 Phil 829 89. People vs Aquino, 71 Phil 143 Article 266-A. Rape. As amended by R.A. No. 8353 Article 266-B. Penalties (R.A. No. 8353) 90. People vs Reyes, 60 SCRA 126 91. People vs Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484 92. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176 93. People vs Canastre, 82 Phil 480 94. People vs Jimenez, 93 Phil 137 95. People vs Savellano, 57 SCRA 320 96. People vs Garcines, 57 SCRA 653 97. People vs Aldana, 175 SCRA 135 98. People vs Bautista, 102 SCRA 483 99. People vs Erinia, 60 Phil 998 100. People vs Orita, 184 SCRA 114 101. People vs Dayo, 62 Phil 102 102. People vs Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 18

MATILAC

103. People vs Laspardas, 93 SCRA 638 Facts: a Constabulary sergeant filed on December 17, 1976 against Laurencio Laspardas. It was alleged therein that on December 1, 1976 inflicted twelve wounds upon Elizabeth Arriesgado and Josephine Arriesgado thereby causing their death. The certificates of death show that the two victims were twelve and eight years old. In view of Laspardas admission in his confession that he raped Elizabeth, the complaint was amended so as to add rape to the charge of double murder. Upon arraignment in the municipal court, Laspardas pleaded guilty. Issue: WON Laspardas is guilty of the penalty of special complex crime of rape with homicide. Held: No, was not committed in this case and that two separate murders were perpetrated. The murders were qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and abuse of confidence, two circumstances which are deducible from the testimony of the accused. Premeditation was evident because there was a sufficient interval of time between the planning of the murders and the execution thereof to allow the conscience of the accused to overcome the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings. There was abuse of confidence because, according to the accused, he had stayed for two years with the family of his two young and trusting victims who in their immaturity and innocence never had an inkling that he had homicidal intentions towards them. Presumably, they looked upon him as their protector and guardian in their parents' absence and not as their aggressor and assassin. The two murders were specifically alleged in the information. The accused cannot complain that he was not duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Even without his extrajudicial confession, his plea of guilty and testimony establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 5, Rule 118, and sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court. The corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the two murders, is indubitably shown in the record. By his plea of guilty, he himself supplied the necessary proof as to his culpability, he was found guilty of two separate murders and is sentenced to two death penalties. 104. People vs Taño, G.R. No. 133872 [2000]

ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 19

105. People vs Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999] 106. People vs Victor, 292 SCRA 186 [1998] 107. People vs Prades, 293 SCRA 411 [1998] 108. People vs Mahinay, 302 SCRA 486 [1999] 109. People vs Robles, Jr., 305 SCRA [1999] 110. People vs Dizon, 309 SCRA 669 [1999] 111. People vs Bayons, G.R. No. 13343, March 2, 2000 112. People vs Mosqueda, 313 SCRA 694 [1999] Article 266-C. Effect of pardon. (R.A. No. 8353) 113. Laceste vs Santos, 56 Phil 472 114. People vs Miranda, 57 Phil 264 Article 266-D. Presumptions (R.A. No. 8353) 115. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176 116. People vs Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142 117. People vs Castro, 58 SCRA 473 118. People vs Conchada, 86 SCRA 683 119. People vs Estrebella, 164 SCRA 114 120. People vs Burgos, 115 SCRA 767 121. People vs Galano, 108 SCRA 405 122. People vs Magabo, 350 SCRA 126 123. People vs Estares, G.R. No. 12878, December 5, 1997