You are on page 1of 4

People vs.

G.R. No. 124933
September 25, 1997


On July 6, 1994 at Barangay Mahabang Parang, San Luis, Batangas, Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal,
and Edwin Mendoza, hit the victim, Nancy Siscar, in her abdomen, and steal and carry away wrist watch
worth One Thousand Pesos (P 1,000.00); earrings worth One Thousand Pesos (P 1,000.00); and cash
worth One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P 1,750.00), belonging to the victim, with a total value of
Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos. The victim was also raped by the accused individually. The
victim was found dead by the Police officers who responded to the crime scene area.

Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, performed the autopsy on the body of the victim. He
found that the victim was sexually abused by more than one person. He confirmed the presence of
spermatozoa on the vaginal canal of the victim. He issued a postmortem certificate attributing the victims
death to asphyxia by strangulation


Whether or not conspiracy exists when the crime was committed by the accused-appellants


Yes, there is conspiracy.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. It cannot be merely presumed. Similar to the physical act constituting the
crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

From the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution, specifically the whistling incident
which involved all three accused-appellants, as well as their act of going over to Olimpios house to threaten
him, a conspiracy can be deduced. And even if it was only Jurry Andal who hit the victim, it was established
that when Jurry Andal carried Nancy to the forest, the other two hurriedly picked Nancys things and
followed suit. They had their own part to perform.
People vs. Santillana
G.R. No. 127815
June 9, 1999


On October 30, 1994, accused Santillana and Bacamante were fixing the sink of their rented house
when Teresita Limpiado confronted them and ordered them to stop. Due to the confrontation, accused
Bacamante was triggered to get a knife and wire. When the latter was about to attack Teresita, it was the
latters husband, Wilfredo, who faced him and suddenly he stabbed Wilfredo and it causes his death.

Dr. Antonio Vertido, the Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy on the victims body,
testified that there was a puncture in the liver caused by a knife, and that the victim died due to hemorrhage
secondary to stab wound in the abdomen from the anterior; that the thrust was directed backward and
downward; and that the position must have been downward and lateral, cutting the 7th rib, penetrating the
diaphragm, and entering the right lobe of the liver with an approximate depth of 13 cms.; and that the
relative positions of the victim and assailant was that they were face to face with each other.
The accused claims that they performed the wrongful act because he need to defend himself. The
Trial Court did not appreciate his claim.

Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense
on the part of the accused

No, the trial court ruled correctly when it did not appreciate the justifying circumstance of self-

The requisites of self-defense are as follows: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
The first element is belied by the testimony of two witnesses. The first is Gary Miano who testified that
he was in front of the house of Teresita Limpiado (or two meters away from the place of the incident)
when he saw the latter conversing with accused-appellant; that afterwards he saw accused-appellant
climb upstairs; that thereafter, the victim asked, Ano ba yun? as he looked upward; and that while
doing so, accused-appellant passed by with a knife and said, Pare, sandali lang, and immediately
thrust the knife by stabbing the victim with his right hand and pushing the chest of the victim with his

People vs. Cariquez

G.R. No. 129304
September 27, 1999
On 27th day of May 1996, accused Ava Maria Victora, being then the mother of a 2 1/2 years old
child, Mariel Cariquez, conspiring and confederating together with Leezel Franco Y Samson, and mutually
helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior
strength and treachery, beat and maul said Mariel Cariquez in the different parts of her body, thereby
inflicting upon her mortal wounds which directly caused her death
Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an autopsy on the little girls body. The
doctor made the following significant findings: fracture linear, right middle cranial fosse; abrasion, right
forehead; contusion, right leg; contusion-abrasion left face; hematoma, forehead right and hematoma,
scalp, right fronto-parietal. In his autopsy report, Dr. Vertido concluded that the cause of death was
Traumatic Head Injury, Severe.
The Trial Court finds accused Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez and Leezel Franco guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal for the crime of Parricide and homicide respectively and considering the mitigating
circumstance that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Whether or not the lower court gravely erred in convicting both accused without sufficient evidence
for conviction

No, the court correctly ruled in convicting both accused
SEC. 42. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequently thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae..

There are three requisites to the admission of evidence as constituting part of the res gestae. (1) that
the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances. In this case the startling occurrences were the
tortures inflicted on Ethel, who when asked who caused them spontaneously pointed to Ava and
Leezel. That sometime may have lapsed between the infliction of the injuries and the disclosure, it must
however, be pointed out that there has been no uniformity as to the interval of time that should separate the
occurrence of the startling event from the making of the declarations. What is necessary is that the injuries
sustained by Ethel prior to the incident on 27 May 1996 were inflicted by Ava and Leezel. These acts are
covered by and punished under R.A. No. 7610, under which they were originally prosecuted. However, the
then Information was amended to charge them with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code. The evidence on the prior incidents cannot legally justify a conviction for the physical injuries inflicted
before 27 May 1996.