You are on page 1of 5

Jsa2101378|Scribd CaseDigest G.R. No. 189328 February 21,2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNOLD PELIS G.R. No.

191721 January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA G.R. No. 181701 January 18, 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO DOLLENDO AND NESTOR MEDICE, NESTOR MEDICE

Jsa2101378|Scribd CaseDigest G.R. No. 189328 February 21,2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNOLD PELIS Facts: On February 19, 2004, the victim, Rolando Juan, was sitting with some companions inside a Videoke Bar, when the appellant and Entura came and, acting together and using knives, stabbed the victim. The appellant stabbed the victim once in the abdomen, while Entura stabbed the victims upper left chest. The appellant and Entura then fled from the crime scene. The victims companions rushed him to a nearby hospital where he died the next day. The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the appellant stabbed the victim without any previous warning while the victim was sitting and unarmed. The CA fully affirmed the RTC decision. Issue: Whether or not treachery is present in the case Ruling: The Supreme Court held that they find no reason to disturb the RTCs findings, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Mario Makahilig is more plausible than the appellants alibi. Positive identification, where categorical, consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial, particularly where the appellant had not shown the physical impossibility of his access to the victim at the time and place of the crime. The RTC correctly appreciated conspiracy since the simultaneous acts of the accused during the stabbing disclosed a unity of objective. Treachery qualified the killing to murder. Although frontal, the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was in no position to repel the attack. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Jsa2101378|Scribd CaseDigest G.R. No. 191721 January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA Facts: On May 9, 2006, while the Avilas were walking towards the coconut plantation at around 8:30 in the morning, they saw Dolorido standing near the coconut drier of Estose, appearing very angry. After some time, Dolorido proceeded to Rustica Doloridos coconut drier located a hundred meters away and hid behind a coconut tree. Moments later, they saw Estose on his way to his own coconut drier. When Estose passed by Rustica Doloridos coconut drier, they saw Dolorido suddenly hack Estose twice, resulting in wounds on his arms. When Estose tried to retreat, he fell down and it was then that Dolorido stabbed him on the left portion of his chest, which caused his death. Dolorido suddenly left the place. Doloridos defense, on the other hand, consisted of the story of selfdefense. The RTC find accused Rogelio Dolorido y Estrada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, and appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance to offset the same. Issue: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accusedappellant of murder despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of treachery. Ruling: The Supreme Court Held that Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself." In the case at bar, it was clearly shown that Estose was deprived of any means to ward off the sudden and unexpected attack by accused-appellant. The evidence showed that accused-appellant hid behind a coconut tree and when Estose passed by the tree, completely unaware of any danger, accused-

Jsa2101378|Scribd appellant immediately hacked him with a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry the blows with his bare hands and as a result, he got wounded. Furthermore, when Estose tried to retreat, stumbling in the process, accusedappellant even took advantage of this and stabbed him resulting in his death. Evidently, the means employed by accused-appellant assured himself of no risk at all arising from the defense which the deceased might make. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. Without a doubt, treachery attended the killing.

Jsa2101378|Scribd CaseDigest G.R. No. 181701 January 18, 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO DOLLENDO AND NESTOR MEDICE, NESTOR MEDICE Facts: On February 13, 2001, Del Valle, together with one Erles Anquillo and victim Ruiz were playing cards in the sala of Romines house. Meanwhile, Romines was getting their pulutan ready. He was in the kitchen, which was about less than two meters away from the sala, with an unobstructed view of the sala. The drinking session had not yet begun when appellant arrived. He did nothing and left immediately upon seeing them. After two minutes, appellant returned with his brother-in-law Dollendo. Ruiz did not notice them enter the house because his back was turned against the door. Appellant pulled out a bolo (dipang), handed it over to Dollendo saying, "Uh! You take care of it," after which, he stepped back. Dollendo, in turn, immediately stabbed Ruiz on the left chest. Del Valle ran to seek police assistance while Romines was left behind. Romines recounted that after the first blow, three successive stab blows were further delivered hitting Ruiz in his chest near the heart and in his arm. Thereafter, appellant and Dollendo fled towards the direction of P. Tingzon. Ruiz died on his way to the hospital. Issue: Whether or not treachery is present in the case Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the law provides that an offender acts with treachery when he "commits any of the crimes against a 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." There is, thus, treachery when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly no inkling of what the assailant was about to do. It is clear in the records that the circumstance of treachery is attendant in this case. The aggressors ensured that the victim had no opportunity to resist or defend himself through the sudden and unexpected attack.