Anda di halaman 1dari 5

PEOPLE vs.

PAREJA et al
Facts:
Victims family was roused from sleep by shouts of "Gising kayo, huwag sumigaw!" Three masked
intruders had gained entry into the house. Amada saw one of them asking Sabina for the betamax.
Emelita shouted for help. The culprits were unmasked. Accused tried but failed to asport a TV set and
betamax machine and instead ended up killing Generoso.
HELD:
Aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not proven. For nocturnity to be considered as such, it must
have been particularly sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.
There is aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Although dwelling is considered as inherent in crimes
which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery thereof
in an inhabited house, it has been held as aggravating in robbery with homicide because the auhor
thereof could have accomplished the heinous deed of snuffing out the victims life without having to
violate his domicile
PEOPLE vs. Cabresos,
Facts:
Roque Cabresos raped Editha Pesidas. The crime was committed with the attendance of aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness as accused was accommodated to live
with the complainant's family. She personally knows the accused Roque Cabresos whom she considers
as her uncle because he is a cousin of her mother. Her mother and father were in Talisayan District
Hospital. She was left in the house together with her brother and sister, who are 12 and 10 years old
respectively. Cabresos who pointed a sharp pointed knife to her neck, squeezed her mouth and boxed
her abdomen that she lost her strength.
HELD:
Although we affirm the findings of the lower court with regard to the guilt of the accused and its
appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of use of a deadly weapon, 36 abuse of confidence and
obvious ungratefulness, 37 we must take exception to its appreciation of blood relationship as an
aggravating circumstance in this case. We have held in earlier cases 38 that the relationship between
uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned in Article 15 of the Revised Penal
Code.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREFIEL
Facts:
Marcela Torlao, her husband and their four children were sound asleep in their house. They were
awakened by the sound of their front door breaking. Grefiel suddenly entered in their bedroom and
beamed flashlight on their faces aandd threatened them. Accused brought the victim in a school and
raped her despite pleading not because she was fou-month pregnant. Accused was harged with
abduction with rape aggravated with nighttime and craft. He admitted such but claimed that they had
sexual liaisons by mutual consent for the past 3 months
Held:
By his admission that he forcibly abducted the victim which, by the way, was independently established
by the evidence for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant unqualifiedly affirms
the existence of the elements of the crime of forcible abduction under Article 342 of the Revised Penal
Code, namely: the taking of a woman against her will and with lewd designs. Indeed, the taking was
1

against complainant's will because she was dragged out of her house by means of force and intimidation.
The abduction was not for any lawful or noble purpose; as he now frankly admits, it was with lewd
designs.
Although not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling should have
also been appreciated against the accused-appellant considering that it was fully established without any
objection on the part of the defense. This Court has held that in the crimes of abduction 43 and illegal
detention 44 where the offended party is taken from his house, dwelling may be taken into account as an
aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE vs CABANGCALA
Facts:
Cabangcala brothers planned to kill the victim because Mario had a quarrel with the victims son. Benny
approached the victim and struck him twice with the bamboo hitting the latter on the left cheek and the
neck. The victim fell, after which Danny and Rene joined Benny in mauling the victim. The victim
pleaded for his life saying "Please have mercy on me. Don't kill me" But the mauling continued. At one
point Danny uttered "Nonsense, had not your son clubbed me I would not avenge" The victim was
mauled further with the piece of bamboo Thereafter; they loaded the victim and brought him to the
mountain of Barangay Ricos. Using shovels, the Cabangcala brothers dug a pit where they dumped the
victim and covered it with soil
HELD:
Regarding abuse of superior strength as aggravating circumstance, what should be considered is not that
there were three, four or more assailants as against one victim, but whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.
As regards the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, it could not be appreciated where, as in this case,
no evidence was presented showing that nocturnity was specially sought by accused or taken advantage
of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his immunity from capture.
PEOPLE vs. LANDICHO, et. Al
Facts:
Four members of the PNP gunned down Isagani Mazon in cold blood. Mazon died instantly, having
suffered twenty-one (21) gunshot wounds, a number of which were at his back. As a result, the accused
were charged with murder, 2 but in the interim, the trial court endowed them the privilege of being
detained by their superiors, instead of customary incarceration at the provincial jail. And if only to
exacerbate matters, the accused then escaped through the connivance or inexcusable negligence of their
guardians. Of the accused, only the appellant was subsequently arrested.
HELD:
In the case at bench, the victim seemed to have expected trouble, considering that upon seeing Manlusoc
and Bunyi approaching him, he told his companion, Mejico, to move away. Nevertheless, treachery may
still be appreciated for even when the victim was warned of danger to his person, what is decisive is that
the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. The
evidence clearly bears this out. The victim was unarmed and the accused gave no warning. The victim
was then totally unprepared to even guess that the appellant and his co-accused Canuelwho were the
first two who appearedwould pepper him with bullets. A sudden attack against an unarmed victim
shows treachery.

Treachery being present, it was then error for the trial court to consider the generic aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength as an independent aggravating circumstance. It is settled that
treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength.
PEOPLE vs. DESALISA
Facts:
Emmanuel Desalisa, a 22-yr old farmer, lived w/ his 18-yrold legal wife, Norma, who was then 5
mos pregnant and their 2-yrold daughter in a small nipa hse on a hill at Pinaductan, Sorsogon.The
whole neighborhood consists of 3 houses. The other 2 housesare about 150 meters away: the house of his
parents-in-law and thehouse of Carlito Dichoso. The view of the houses is obstructed bythe many fruit
trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.On Oct 9, 1983, Vicente Dioneda, the father-in-law of the
accused,testified that the latter went to their house and left his 2 yr-old. Thenext day, at about 6 or 7AM,
Vicente went to the house of theaccused only to find plates scattered on the floor, the kettle w/cooked
rice untouched, and the other rope holding the hammock missing. He went out of the house and noticed
the couples pig to be hungry. He thought of feeding it w/ coconut meat from the tree w/cwas nearby. He
saw the back of the body of his daughter. He calledher and touched her back. However, her body swayed.
It was onlythen that he realized that she was hanging from a branch of the jackfruit tree. Her neck was
suspended about 4 inches above theground. Her neck was tied w/ the missing rope of the
hammock.There were no eyewitnesses to the incident.Accused-appellant often manhandled his daughter
because hesuspected her of having a paramour and that the baby in her wombwas not his. He believed
that one Ariate was courting his wife.Desalisa invokes the defense of denial. He speculates that it washis
wife who was jealous. She suspected him of having an affair w/the daughter of Manoy Charito.
HELD:
The accused has the opportunity to commit the crime. The house where they lived is up a hill
and isolated. The wholeneighborhood consists only of 3 houses. No one can go up the hill tovisit w/o
being known to the neighbor. Moreover, the motive of jealousy is evident for what can be more
humiliating to a man aside from a wife being unfaithful to be refused entry to ones very home? Although
the accused did not flee after the crime, there is no caselaw holding that non-flight is conclusive of
proof of innocence.The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can not beappreciated
against accused-appellant absent any proof as to howand when the plan to kill was hatched or what time
elapsed before itwas carried out. Neither may the aggr circumstance of nighttime be appreciated against
him because there is no proof that it waspurposely sought or taken advantage of or that it facilitated
thecommission of the crime.However, the aggr circumstance of uninhabited place is present.The
uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance ofthe nearest house to the scene of the
crime but WON there wasreasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help in the placeof
commission. Considering that the killing was done duringnighttime and many fruit trees and shrubs
obstructed the view of theneighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for thevictim to
receive any assistance.
THE UNITED STATES vs. RODRIGUEZ ET Al
Facts:
Appellants, with nine other, being members of the second company of the Constabulary stationed at
Davao, mutinied on the 6th day of June, 1909, attempting, during the course of such mutiny, to kill one
of their superior officers, Lieutenant Goicuria; that immediately after such revolt the mutinees, having
taken arms and ammunition from the depositary, left the vicinity of Davao and marched toward the
mountains of Lipada; that on the 8th day of June, 1909, said mutineers returned to Davao for the
purpose of attacking the town; that the inhabitants thereof, having received previous notice of the
proposed attack, prepared themselves to meet it; that J. L. Burchfield, P. C. Libby, A. M. Templeton, and
3

Roy Libby, armed with rifles, having been detailed by those commanding the defense of the town, on the
afternoon of the day referred to, advanced to the cemetery within the limits of the town, forming an
outpost for the purpose of awaiting the coming of the mutineers; that about 4.15 o'clock they sighted the
mutineers; that immediately thereafter they heard a shot, followed by others, which came from near the
cemetery, where the mutineers had halted and dismounted; that after a few shots had been exchanged
Roy Libby was struck with a ball and killed; that the outpost retreated to the convent and took refuge
therein; that the mutineers advanced against the town, attacking it at various points and especially the
convent, where a portion of the residents of the town had gathered, including the women and children,
or the purpose of defending themselves; that no other person except Roy Libby was killed, although
several others were more or less severely wounded.
HELD:
Facts examined and held sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime of murder. In order that
premeditacin conocida may exist, it is not necessary that the accused premeditate the killing of a
particular individual. A general attack with deadly weapons upon a given village having been
premeditated and planned, the killing of any individual during the excitement of that attack is murder.
The nature and characteristics of the aggravating circumstances defined in paragraphs 8 to 16, inclusive,
of the findings, discussed and presented, and such circumstances found not present under the facts.
PEOPLE vs. UMBRERO et. al
Facts:
Angelina Urbi Ragsac, daughter of the victim Alfonso Urbi was at home in Sta. Teresa when several
armed men came, two (2) of whom shot her father under the house, accused Alfredo Costales and Danny
Costales. Danny followed her father when he ran outside the house but the companions of Alfredo
Costales followed and killed him. She, her father and mother and her children were then eating on the
ground floor of their house when the armed men arrived. Her father stood up when Danny Costales
asked for water to drink. Her father went to the door to see him and his companions. It was there where
Danny Costales shot him.
HELD:
Qualifying circumstance of treachery is present in the case at bar. There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. The shooting of Alfonso Urbi was sudden and
unexpected. The victim was unarmed, unable to defend himself. He was an unsuspecting victim as the
assailants just asked for a drink of water. He was totally unprepared to be able to defend himself.
On the other hand, evident premeditation was not clearly established, contrary to the findings of the
trial court. Although conspiracy existed, it was merely inferred from the acts of the accused in the
perpetration of the crime, the requisites necessary to appreciate evident premeditation have not been
met in this case.

PEOPLE vs. LAGARTO


Facts:
In the early evening of May 25, 1983, Reynaldo Aducal, who was buying fish in the public market,
Poblacion Laoang, Northern Samar, was fatally stabbed on his chest with the use of a Batangas fan knife
or Balisong, which wounds caused the instantaneous death of the victim. Right after the stabbing, the
assailant was apprehended by Pfc. Wenefredo Laguitan whose commendable act thwarted the assailant's
escape.
Held:
Evident Premeditation; To show evident premeditation, it is required that criminal intent be evidenced
by notorious acts evincing the determination to commit the same, mere admission of accused that he
had long planned to kill the victim is not enough. The statement of the accused, that he had long planned
to kill Reynaldo Aducal in retaliation for the act of Reynaldo Aducal in stabbing his brother, does not
adequately prove the existence of evident pre-meditation.
A plea of guilty, besides being a mitigating circumstance, is a judicial confession of guilt, an admission of
all material facts alleged in the information
Herein accused had been convicted of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 before the trial of
the present Criminal Case No. 1566. The former counsel de oficio of herein accused alleged that the
judgment in Criminal Case No. 1473 was rendered on September 15, 1983, hence when the accused was
arraigned on October 11, 1983 for Criminal Case No. 1566 he was not a recidivist. The former counsel de
oficio is of the opinion that the time of trial is to be reckoned with the date of the arraignment. The
phrase at the time of his trial should not be restrictively construed as to mean the date of arraignment.