You are on page 1of 3

PEOPLE VS.

CANTONJOS
FACTS:
 On November 16, 1997, Cantonjos and Rogelio Alcantara were at a wedding party and had a heated
argument regarding Rogelio's tricycle, which Alcantara was driving.

In the middle of the heated argument, Cantonjos left the party on a tricycle, tagging along Bolon and
another identified man. The group then fetched the accused Balag from his house.

The group thereafter proceeded to the house of Jimmy Olaje where Cantonjos and Balag borrowed a
bolo, but to no avail.

Before 8:00 p.m. that night, Cantonjos' group arrived at the Rosario Institute. Cantonjos and Balag went
inside the institute, while Bolon and another unidentified man were left outside of the institute upon
Cantonjos' instructions.

As Cantonjos entered the institute's gate, he pulled out an icepick from the waist of his pants. Sometime
after Cantonjos and Balag went inside the Rosario Institute, they came out running with bloodied hands.

Cantonjos exclaimed that they (he and Balag) killed Rogelio Alcantara and that Balag cut Cantonjos' right
thumb with his fan knife when Cantonjos tried to stop him from further stabbing Rogelio. Cantonjos
threatened Bolon that he and Balag would kill him if he reported the killing to anybody.

On November 21, 1997, the victim’s family and Bolon went to the municipal hall, where the latter gave his
sworn statement narrating the killing of Alcantara.
Balag was arrested by his uncle policeman, but Cantojos remained at large.
The trial court rendered judgment finding Balag guilty beyond the reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and scoffing at the corpse of the
victim.
Accused-appellant requested a review of the decision of the court stating that the trial court erred in
finding him as one of the authors of the crime charged and guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


ISSUE:
 Whether or not the court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength in the commission of the crime.
HELD:
 Yes, the court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. In order that
evident premeditation may be appreciated, the prosecution must show:
(1) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and
(3) A sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime
that would be sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warnings.
 The prosecution in the instant case, however, has failed to show when the plan to kill Rogelio was
hatched and that sufficient time had elapsed between that time and the execution of the plan on
November 16, 1997 so as to allow the accused Balag and Cantonjos to reflect upon the consequences of

and then.  He was charged guilty with the crime of murder for the killing of Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal and also charged guilty with the crime of rape of AAA. forcibly brought them to a grassy area. LAOG FACTS:  Accused-appellant Laog was charged of two crimes on the 6th day of June 2000. HELD:  The court held that appellant’s testimony is a defense of denial and alibi. His defense cannot prevail over the straightforward and credible testimony of AAA who positively identified him as the perpetrator of murder and rape. There must exist proof that the attackers deliberately took advantage of their superior strength. PEOPLE VS. that the court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite failure of the prosecution to prove it.  AAA testified that she and her friend. as personally witnessed by AAA. stabbed her on the face. while holding an ice pick. and seventeen and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. but the prosecution in the instant case has not adduced such evidence. and that the court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. accused-appellant. Clearly. and therefore held no consideration. the impugned decision of the court is modified. Mere presumptions and inferences. no matter how logical and probable they might be. raped her. .  Accused appellant. by first hitting her in the head with a lead pipe to render her defenseless and vulnerable before stabbing her repeatedly.  In this case.  It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely used excessive force that is out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. were walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply for work when suddenly. would not suffice to establish evident premeditation. Having said. Jennifer. ISSUE:  Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide. appellant struck Jennifer in the head with a lead pipe then stabbed her repeatedly until she was dead. Laog. Abuse of superior strength cannot likewise be appreciated even if there were at least two assailants as superiority in number vis-a-vis that of the victim does not of itself warrant a finding of abuse of superior strength. while AAA was hit in the head several times with the lead pipe.  their acts.  The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The accused appellant is found guilty of Homicide beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to twelve years of prision mayor as minimum. the manner by which appellant had brutally slain Jennifer with a lethal weapon.  Accused appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick resulting to her death. unmistakably showed that appellant intentionally used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to his unarmed victim. appealed to dismiss the decision of the court contending that the court gravely erred in giving credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA.

he saw appellant and Salcedo stab the victim some more. YANSON FACTS:  Elmo Galfo (victim) and Calito Magan. the court maintained its decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. which the offended party might make. When he looked back. and unexpected manner. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift.  The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime in this case. the court held that the failure to specifically mention his name does not foreclose the fact that he was the assailant.A. deliberate. In this case. and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. they were joined by appellant and Salcedo. methods. Thus. which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense.  Appellant denied the charges against him and contended that in Galfo’s sworn statement before the police officers. 8353. making him run for safety. the latter did not identify him as the assailant and that Galfo described him only through the outfit without any mention of his features or identifying marks. HELD:  Yes. They finished drinking at around 8:45 in the evening after which Galfo and Magan walked home together.  While walking.  Galfo tried to approach the victim but saw appellant and Salcedo rush towards him. . More importantly. Galfo noticed two persons following them. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. as amended by R. both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. PEOPLE VS. Galfo positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime.  The abuse of superior strength and use of deadly weapon as aggravating circumstances have greater relevance insofar as the civil aspect of this case is concerned. one of whom suddenly stabbed Magan at the back. unarmed.  Furthermore. employing means. were drinking whisky in the store of a certain Lorna Tamson. Galfo’s narration in his sworn statement is consistent in all material points with his testimony in open court. It must be recalled that during his testimony in court.  After a while. Galfo positively identified the appellant as the person who stabbed Magan. The prosecution established that the appellant suddenly stabbed the victim from behind thereby giving him no opportunity to resist the attack or defend himself. or forms in the execution. affording the hapless. ISSUE:  Whether or not Yanson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.  For treachery to be considered. No. and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate.  There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons.