Peoplev.

Sanchez
Facts:ThecrimeofrapewithhomicidewaschargedagainstMayorAntonioSanchez,Medialdea,Ama,
Brion,Luis,Rogelio,andKawitfortheacttheycommittedonJune28,1993whichledtothedeathof
EileenandAllan.ThefactswerebasedonthewitnessesCentenoandMalabanan.InJune1993,the
accusedMedialdeatogetherwithCentenowhowasthendrivinganambulancefetchedwitnessMalabanan
onthepretextthattheywillapprehendthenotoriousgunrunneranddrugpusher,Tisoy.Theyalsopicked
upAmaandLuisandtherestoftheaccused,afterwhich,theyheadedtoLosBanos.Itwasonlythen,
whenLuisinformedthemthattheirrealpurposewastotakeEileenwhowasthendesiredbytheMayor.
Afterroamingaround,theywenttotheAgrixcomplexandthere,theysawandapproachedEileenand
AllaninsidethetamarawvanandforciblytookandbroughtthemtoEraisfarmwhichwasownedbythe
Mayor.TheyinformedtheMayorthattheyalreadybroughthimEileenastheirgifttotheMayor.The
accusedeveninformedtheMayorthattheywillgoingtokillAllanafterwards.Eileenwasbroughttothe
MayorsroomandAllanwasbeatenupbyLuis,Boy,AmaandMedialdea.AfterthedeedoftheMayor,
heinformedthementhattheycandowhatevertheywanttoEileenasheisalreadydonewithher.
Thereafter,AllanandEileenwerethenloadedinthevan.Allanwasdraggedfromthevan,shotand
lifeless.Whereas,EileenafterbeingrapedbywasshottodeathandwasleftinsidetheTamarawvan.
Aftertheincident,Centenodrovethementotheirrespectivehomes.
Onthefollowingdaytheaccusedwenttothecrimesceneandmadeitappearthattheywereconduction
aninvestigation.Beingthemajorsuspects,theaccusedhadtheiralibitotellandputtheblameonKit
AlquezathesonofGeneralAlqueza.Allofthedefendants,deniedtheaccusationsandinsteadpointed
theirfingerstoKitandotherpeople,allofthemtoldthecourtthattheyweredoingsomethingontheday
theincidenthappened.Thedefense,questionedthecredibilityofthestatementsofthewitnesses,whose
narrationsservedasprincipalbasisforthetrialcourtsrenditionofaguiltyverdict

Issue:WONthedefendantsareguiltyofrapewithhomicide

Held:Thecourtaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Astothecredibilityofthewitnessesthecourt
findthemcredibleasitwasnotshownthattheyhadsomethingagainsttheaccusedtogivethecourtfalse
statements.Furthermore,thechangedofstatementofCentenowasfoundtobeunderstandableasitwas
becauseofhisfearthatifhetestifiedagainsttheMayor,hisfamilyslifewouldbeindanger.Whereas,
theappellantsreliedonthedefenseofalibiandthewitnessestheypresentedcannotbegivenweightasthe
witnesses were family members. Moreover, the defendants alibis were weak. The statements of the
appellantswereinconsistentwiththatofCentenosastheyrefertotrivialdetailswhichdonottouchupon
thewhereforesofthecrimecommitted.Itwasevensupportedbythemissingbeltloopfromthepairof
whiteshortswornbyEileenonthenightofthecrimewhichwasrecoveredfromEraisfarmanotheristhe
emptybulletshellrecoveredatthesitewhereAllansbodywasfoundanditwasrevealedthatthebullets
werethesameasthoseregisteredunderthenameofLuis,thesamebulletwasfoundinsideEileensbody.
The autopsy of Eileens body even strengthened the guilt ofthe defendants. Due to the meritorious
evidencecoupledwiththetestimoniesofthewitnesses,thecourtrenderedtheappellantsguiltyof7
countsofrapewithhomicide.

Peoplev.Mallari
Facts:RufinoMallariwaschargedofmurderfortheacthecommittedsometimeinJuly1996against
JosephGalang,whoaccordingtothewitnessesmaliciouslykilledJosephbecauseofhisgrudgeagainst
thedeceased,whenthedeceasedtoldMallarinottodrivefastwhilepassingtheformershouse.Thatlater
thatafternoon,whileJosephandLizawerewatchingabasketballgameatthebrgybasketballcourt,
RufinoandhisbrotherswhowerecarryingbladedweaponsattemptedtostabJosephbuthewasableto
runaway.Rufinothen,boardedanddrivethetruckparkednearthecourtandchasedJosephuntilthe
latterwasranovercausinghisdeath.
Theappellant,supportedbyhiswife,arguedthatwhilehewasdrivingatruckataspeedof80km/hhe
sawJosephontheroad4mawayfromhim,thatheblewthehornbutJosephthrewstoneswhichhit
RufinoschestwhichmadehimlostcontrolofthetruckandranoverJoseph.Becauseoffear,Rufino
wentstraighttoSta.Rosamunicipalhallwherehesurrenderedandwasimmediatelydetained.
ThetrialcourtconvictedRufinoofmurderappreciatingthequalifyingcircumstanceofuseofmotor
vehicle. Mallari argued that his conviction should only be homicide because of the mitigating
circumstance.

ISSUE:WONMallariisguiltyofmurder

HELD:ThecourtaffirmedthedecisionofRTC.Thecourtfindsnoissueregardingthecredibilityofthe
witnessesastothedeathofGalangthatthedeceasedwashitbythetruckwhichwasdrivenbyRufino.
ThatRufinointentionallyranoverJosephbecauseofthestatementofJosephthatwhichwasbadlytaken
byMallari,thatbecauseofMallarisfailuretostabJosephinthebrgycourt,hethenresortedchasing
Josephusingthetrackandintentionallyranoverhim.
ThetestimoniesofLizaandEdgarwhowerepresentatthetimeoftheincidentwereconsistentwiththeir
respectiveswornstatements.While,RufinoandMyrnastestimonieswereinconsistentwithoneanother.
(Myrna:Rufinowasdrivingatslowpace;Rufino:toldthecourtthathewasdriving80km/h).Rufinos
statementswerealsoinconsistentashefirsttoldthecourtthathesawJosephwalkinginazigzagmanner,
wasdrunk,andthrowingstonesatthetruck,
thenchangeditwhenhewascrossexamined,thathesawJosephforthefirsttimeattheplacewherehe
wasrunover.RufinostestimonythathefirstsawJosephontheroadwhenthetruckwasjustfourmeters
awayfromhim.AccordingtoRufino,theroadwasclearbecauseonlyJosephandthetruckhewas
drivingwereontheroad.FromRufinosowntestimony,itappearsthathisviewwasunobstructed.He
couldhaveseenJosephfromafarandcouldthereforehaveavoidedbumpingthelatterhadhereally
wantedto.Thetrialcourtimposedthedeathpenaltyonthegroundthatthequalifyingcircumstanceofuse
ofmotorvehicleispresent.Rufino,however,arguesthattheuseofamotorvehiclewasonlyincidental,
consideringthatheresortedtoitonlytoenablehimtogoafterJosephafterhefailedtocatchupwiththe
latter.TheevidenceshowsthatRufinodeliberatelyusedhistruckinpursuingJoseph.Uponcatchingup
withhim,Rufinohithimwiththetruck,asaresultofwhichJosephdiedinstantly.Itisthereforeclearthat
thetruckwas themeans usedbyRufinotoperpetratethekillingofJoseph.Thecourtheldthatfor
voluntarysurrendertobeappreciatedasamitigatingcircumstance,thefollowingrequisitesmustconcur:
(1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authorityortoanagentofapersoninauthority;and(3)thesurrenderwasvoluntary.[29]Asurrenderis
considered voluntary if it is spontaneous and shows the intention of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities because he either acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save the
governmentthetroubleandexpensenecessarilyincludedforhissearchandcapture.Alltheserequisites
arepresentinthiscase.