PALAGANAS VS.

PEOPLE

Facts: Brothers Servillano, Melton and Michael Ferrer were having their drinking
spree at their house but later decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke Bar to
continue their drinking spree and to sing.
Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas
(nephew) and Virgilio Bautista. When Jaime Palaganas was singing, Melton
Ferrer sang with him. Jaime Palaganas got irritated and insulted. He felt that he
was being mocked by Melton Ferrer, that caused him to went to the Ferrer’s table
and uttered statements which began the fight.
Ferdinand sought help to Rujjeric Palaganas. They went to the Bar and
upon seeing the Ferrer’s outside, Ferdinand pointing at the Ferrer’s instructed
Rujjeric to shoot them. Rujjeric Palaganas shot Servillano, Melton and Michael
with the use of unlicensed firearm.

As a result, Melton was killed, Servillano was fatally wounded and Michael
was shot in his right shoulder.

Issue: Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating

circumstance which should be appreciated by the court at the case at bar?
Held: Yes. It has been held by the Supreme Court from the precedents before
the case that the use of unlicensed firearm is now considered as a special
aggravating circumstance.
The Court states that:
“Aside from the aggravating circumstances abovementioned, there is also an
aggravating circumstance provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1866,63 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294,64 which is a special law. Its pertinent
provision states:”
“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.”
Therefore, the decision was affirmed with certain modifications appreciating the
special aggravating circumstance in the case at bar.
FORTUNA VS PEOPLE
FACTS: Diosdada and her brother Mario Montecillo was waiting for a ride home
when suddenly a mobile patrol stopped in front of them. The policeman seated
in the front right seated alighted and without a word frisked Mario. He took
Mario’s belt and pointed to the supposed blunt object and uttered “evidence”. He
then mentioned to Mario to board the car. Mario being terrified obeyed and
seated himself at the back with another policeman. Diosdada instinctively
followed suit and sat beside Mario.
The driver asked Mario why he was carrying a “deadly weapon”. Mario
answered that its for self-defense. They frightened Mario that for carrying a
deadly weapon he will be brought to Bicutan police station where he would be
interrogated by the police, mauled by prisoners and heckled by the press. The
policeman told the Montecillo’s that the bailband for carrying a deadly weapon
 would be Php 12,000.00. At this point the driver asked them how much money
they had.
Diosdada was then made to alight the car. The driver followed her and
forced her to take out her wallet. He counted her money which amounts to Php
5,000.00. He took the Php 1,500 and instructed Diosdada to tell his companions
that she only had Php 3,500.00.
Once in the car the policeman directed her to put her money in the
console box. The car then proceed to Harrison Plaza and unload Diosdada and
her brother Mario.
The following day Diosdada recounted her harrowing story to her
employer who accompanied her to the office of the then General Diokno where
they lodged their complaint. General Diokno directed one of his policemen to
look for the erring policemen. A line up of policemen was assembled and
Diosdada recognized them.
They were found guilty of having conspired to commit a crime by the trial
court and it was affirmed by the appellate court.
However, Fortuna contends that the trial and appellate court erred in their
decision that he took part in the conspiracy. He argued that the evidenced
presented by the prosecution did not support the theory of conspiracy against
him.
The supreme court, however, was convinced that the trial court and the
appellate court did not erred in holding the accused appellant Fortuna guilty for
conspiring with the other policemen.
“As a police officer, it is his primary duty to avert by all means the
commission of an offense. As such, he should not have kept his silence but,
instead, should have protected the Montecillos from his mulcting
colleagues. This accused-appellant failed to do. His silence then could only be
viewed as a form of moral support which he zealously lent to his co-
conspirators.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance under Article 14 paragraph 1
or the “abuse of public position” should be appreciated in the case at bar?
HELD: Yes. The mere fact that the three accused were police officers at the time
of the robbery placed them in the position to perpetrate the offense. If they were
not police officers the Montecillo’s would not have been terrified on boarding the
patrol car and hand them their money. Precisely on account of their authority
that the Montecillo’s believed that Mario committed a crime and would be brought
to the police station for investigation unless they gave them money.
Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision with modifications
appreciating the aggravating circumstance on the case at bar.
PEOPLE VS. TAÑO
FACTS: Amy was attending the Video Rental Shop of her cousin Anna. The
accused-appellant Alexander Taño arrived and asked Amy what time his relative
Gerry (husband of Anna) would arrive in the shop. Losing his patience on
waiting for his relative he jumped into the counter and pokes a knife to Amy.
Thereafter, he raped Amy and robbed Anna’s valuables.
 The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the
case at hand which was also affirmed by the appellate court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of dwelling should apply on
the case at bar?
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that at the case at the hand that “the
building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely for dwelling
purposes”.