12910607 (2003)]
November 10, 2010 Nature: Automatic Review of a Decision of the RTC of Palawan ? Gonzalo Baldogo alias “Baguio” & Edgar Bermas alias “Bunso” were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony ? On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the mountains. ? During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree. ? Feb. 28, 1996 – Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked for help from Nicodemus ? Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed. ? Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him. ? The trial court convicted Bunso of o Murder – appreciating against him the specific aggravating circumstance of taking advantage and use of superior strength, w/o any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, & pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par., No. 1, of A63 of the RPC, he is hereby sentenced to death o Kidnapping – no modifying circumstance appreciated and pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par., No. 2, of A63 of the RPC, & not being entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, w/ the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life, & of perpetual absolute disqualification; Issues: 1. WON the accused is guilty of murder and kidnapping. YES ? Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to probative weight because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas. ? Julie’s testimony is credible – findings of facts of the TC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight of the collective evidence of the parties & its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not conclusive effect. The raison d’etre of this principle is that this Court has to contend itself w/ the mute pages of the original records in resolving the issues posed by the parties; The TC has the unique advantage of monitoring & observing at close range the attitude, conduct & deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective testimonies before said court ? Exceptions: a. when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court; b. when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence; c. when the TC ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued facts & circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case ? It’s incumbent on the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged had been committed & that accused-appellant precisely committed the same. Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence & not on the weakness of accused’s evidence ? The prosecution adduced indubitable proof that accused-appellant conspired w/ Bermas not only in killing Jorge but also in kidnapping & detaining Julie. There is conspiracy if 2 or more persons agree to commit a felony &

138033 January 30. BALEROS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. As long as all the conspirators performed specific acts w/ such closeness & coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design in bringing about the death of the victim. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. Hence. It is Baleros' submission that his . Since treachery attended the killing. all the conspirators are criminally liable for the death of said victim. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused. ? The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects. ? Baldogo & Bermas were armed w/ bolos. Jr. Renato Baleros. during & after the commission of a felony pointing to a joint purpose & design & community of intent. Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. abuse of superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance. ? Dwelling aggravating because there is no evidence that Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their house and killed outside the said house ? Killing was qualified w/ treachery – Court has previously held that the killing of minor children who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended by treachery. vs. b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination. said acts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice. requisites a. JR. Time when offender determined to commit the crime. 2007 FACTS: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila. The law doesn’t prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. 2. tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. ? Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength can be appreciated. ? To warrant a finding of evident premeditation. the accused. before. by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. ? Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself ? It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it. – insufficient evidence for evident premeditation. and c.R. the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. NO. vs. there’s no evidence that they took advantage of their numerical superiority & weapons to kill Jorge. abuse of superior strength can’t be deemed to have attended the killing of Jorge.decide to commit it. JR. moved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision acquitting him of the crime of attempted rape but adjudging him guilty of light coercion. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest RENATO BALEROS.

is guilty of unjust vexation. Astorga claimed that he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year-old Yvonne Traya which should’ve been apparent and proven upon conviction. G. . irritation. the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute the elements of the said crime.) Whether or not the lack of motive by the appellant is significant in the court’s decision. HELD: Yes. runs counter to the en banc ruling in People v.R. 287(2) of the RPC. Contreras where the Court held: The SOLGEN contends that Contreras should be held liable for unjust vexation under Art. Moreover. ISSUE: Whether Renato Baleros. Furthermore. ISSUES: 1. 2.conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted rape. or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.) Whether or not the prosecution’s witnesses were credible. 110097. by the acts of the Baleros. distress. The SC wish to stress that malice. if not distressed. Contreras. the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in Art. cannot be convicted of unjust vexation. would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. The paramount question in a prosecution for unjust vexation is whether the offender's act causes annoyance. although not productive of some physical or material harm. December 22. irritation. torment. after the incident cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed. therefore. However. distress and disturbance. He argues that the Information against him does not allege that the act of covering the face of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her annoyance. 335. Astorga claimed that the court erred in convicting him despite the fact that he had not detained nor locked Yvonne up which is an important element in kidnapping. compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. That the victim. Jr. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which. Ultimately. 1997 FACTS: Appellant Arnulfo Astorga appealed the court’s decision on Criminal Case No. Astorga insisted that the inconsistencies and the contradictions of the prosecution’s witnesses should be deemed incredible and that the delay in the filing of the accusation weakened the case. 8243 wherein appellant was charged with violation of Article 267. No. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code or the kidnap and detention of a minor. torment.

that he actually detained her. 3.) The delay in the making of the criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility of the witnesses especially if it had been satisfactorily explained.3. The evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne. Accordingly. appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. the appellant himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central Elementary School.) The court found it irrelevant to identify the motive since motive is not an element of the crime. much less. Davao. Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. RULING: 1. Besides. Rather.) The court agreed with the appellant’s contention. one week was reasonable since the victim was a resident in Binaungan and that the case was filed in Tagum. the felony committed was grave coercion under Article 286 of the same code. There was no “lock up”.) Whether or not it was kidnapping or coercion. . Appellant’s forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the person of Yvonne. 2. In the case.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.