Aggravating Circumstances: Taking advantage of public office

b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that Jimmy would die. His
People v Capalac situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile and unavailing.
GR No. L38297 There was also no risk to the aggressors since two other companions assisted them.

Date of Promulgation: Oct 23, 1982
Ponente: Fernando, CJ.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of CFI of Iligan
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Mario Capalac
Facts:
Moises Capalac, the brother of accused Mario Capalac (a police officer), was stabbed by Jimmy
Magaso. Following this incident, in the cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to escape when he was
confronted by the Moises brothers (Mario and Jesus1) and 2 other companions2. The attempt of
Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two shots were fired in succession.
Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of
surrender, but they were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by Mario, and after having fallen in
the ground, was stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus. He died on the way to the hospital.
Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The lower Court
also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer. He was sentenced to death.
c.There is no evident premeditation. The brothers were prompted by their desire to avenge
Moises. They went after Jimmy, assaulted him, and relied on the weapons that they
carried. There was no evidence that they deliberately employed means to add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act.
d. There is mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication since the purpose of the crime
was to vindicate the stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.
Decision:
Decision modified. In lieu of mitigating circumstance of immeadiate vindication, penalty of death is
lowered to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor min to 17 years, 4 mos, and 1 day of reclusion
temporal max. Decision affirmed in all other aspects.
Opinions:
Concur:
Concepcion, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova

Mario appealed, thus this review.

Issues/Held:
1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position
NO
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery YES
c. Evident premeditation NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication YES

Ratio:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by itself justify the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He acted like a
brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his
kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy and
he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his criminal
responsibility.

2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions, apparently had
one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all acted in concert.

1Jesus has already died and so he was not included as an accused in the information filed. 2 The two companions were not named and were not included in the information.
PEOPLE VS TIONGSON
FACTS:
Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with
George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted
Homicide. While in the act of escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member
of the police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who went
in pursuit of them.
ISSUE: WON there is an aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority
HELD: No aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority
The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the
very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela
are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority.
#7 People of the Philippines vs. Renato Tac-an Y Hipos
G.R. Nos. 76338-39
February 26, 1990
Ponente: Feliciano, J.
Topic: Direct Assault
Facts:
- Respondent Renato Tac-an (18) and deceased victim Francis Ernest Escano III (15) were
classmates in the third year of high school of Divine Word College in Tagbilaran City.
They used to be close friends, being members of the same Bronx gang, until Francis
withdrew from the gang and their friendship turned sour thereafter.
- At 2pm of 14 December 1984, Renato entered Room 15 of their high school building to
attend English III class, where Francis is also a classmate. Renato had placed a scrapbook
he prepared for their next Mathematics class on his chair while he approached their English
III teacher (Mrs. Liliosa Baluma) to raise a question. Upon returning to his chair, Renato
then saw Francis sitting on the said scrapbook which angered him that he promptly kicked
the chair where the latter was seated. Francis explained that he had not intentionally sat
down on Renatos scrapbook. A fistfight would have ensued if not for the intervention of
their classmates and two teachers (Mrs. Baluma and Mr. Pasilbas). When the teo had
calmed down and had shaked hands, Mrs. Baluma resumed her class.
- Subsequently, Renato slipped out of the classroom in the middle of their English III class to
go home and get a gun. The next Math class under Mr. Pasilbas started when Renato
suddenly burst into the room, shut the door and shouted Where is Francis?. Upon seeing
Francis, Renato fired four times before it hit the victim on the head and fell to the floor.
- After having shot Francis, Renato was found alone outside Room 15 when a teacher (Mr.
Pablo Baluma), unaware that the latter was the killer, asked if he could help Francis who
was still alive inside the room. Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, aimed at the chest of
Francis and fired once more.
- Thereafter, Renato proceeded to the faculty room where he held hostages some teachers
and students, and reloaded his gun. Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Lazo
arrived and surrounded the faculty room.
 - After some time, Renatos father and brother pleaded for his surrender. Renato then turned
over his gun to his brother while Capt. Lazo placed Renato under arrest.

- The teachers and students afterwards rushed Frances to Celestino Gallares Memorial
Hospital where the he was pronounced dead on arrival.

- On 14 December 1984, RTC of Tagbilaran City held respondent Renato Tac-an guilty
beyond reasonable doubt to the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions
qualified with Murder to suffer a penalty of death. Respondent was also held guilty beyond
reasonable doubt to the crime of Murder, appreciating aggravating circumstances of acting:
1) while under the influence of drugs, 2) with the use of an unlicensed firearm, and 3) with
insult to a person in authority, to also suffer a penalty of death.

Issue:

WON the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities?

Held/Ruling:

No. Court held its disagreement that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school
may be regarded as a public authority within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14
(Aggravating Circumstances) if the RPC.

Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 of the RPC (Persons in authority abd agents of
persons in authority) will show that while a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private
school is deemed to be a person in authority, such teacher or professor is so deemed only for
purposes of application of Articles: 148 (Direct Assault upon a person in authority), and 151
(Resistance and Disobedience to a person in authority of the agents of such person) of the RPC.
People vs. Mandolado
G.R. No. L-51304-05 (1983)
Ponente: Guerrero
FACTS:
Martin Mandolado was sentenced to death for the shooting Nolasco
Mendoza at different parts of his body, causing the latter's instantaneous
death. The incident happened on October 3, 1977 in Sultan Kudarat,
Maguindanao. In another criminal case, he was charged for the murder of
Herminigildo Fajardo Tenorio. Both criminal cases had the aggravating
circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior
strength.
On October 3, 1977, Julian Ortillano, Martin Mandolado, Conrado Erinada,
and Anacleto Simon, draftees of the AFP, were passengers of a bus
bound for Midsayap, South Cotabato. In a bus terminal, they all met
each other and decided to drink rum. Mandolado got drunk and went
inside a public market. When he returned, he grabbed his .30 caliber
machine gun and started firing. His companions tried to stop him, but
he continued firing his gun.
Conrado and Anacleto hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera. The
others also followed and boarded, and they forced the driver to being
them to the crossing. Mandolado grabbed his knife and tried to attack
the driver, then he fired his gun at a speeding vehicle, hitting the right
side of the back of the driver's sister who was onboard the vehicle.
At the crossing, a privately-owned jeep, driven by Herminigildo,
passed by. Nolasco Mendoza was on board that jeep bound for
Cotabato City. Conrado and Anacleto boarded the jeep, while the
others ran after it at shouted at Herminigildo to stop the vehicle.
Thereafter, Mandolado and Ortillano also boarded the jeep, but kept
firing their guns. Herminigildo said that if they did not stop firing their
guns, he will "ram the jeep" into something.
Upon learning that the jeep was bound of Cotabato City and not Pikit,
North Cotabato, Mandolado got mad and pointed his gun at
Herminigildo. After alighting the vehicle, Mandolado fired his machine
gun at the jeep and hit Nolasco and Herminigildo. Mandolado and
Ortillano were able to escape, and they even watched a movie. It was
only when they met a certain Sgt. Villanueva that they were informed
of being suspects in the Herminigildo's and Nolasco's deaths. As
such, Mandolado purchased 2 passenger tickets for Manila. Before
they could board the ship, however, they were apprehended by a
team led by Lt. Licas, and were brought to Pikit, North Cotabato for
investigation.
All evidence pointed to the guilt of Ortillano and Mandolado. The sole
assignment of error in the case at bar is that trial court erred because their
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in terms of being actual
perpetrators of the crime. They cited that the prosecution did not present any
witness who can prove that the empty shells recovered from the crime scene
belonged to Mandolado's machine gun.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. W/N the trial court failed to acknowledge Ortillano and Mandolado's
drunkenness -YES
The drunkenness of both appellants were put into consideration as a
mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court decided to reduce their
sentences.
2. W/N the trial court correctly qualified the crime as murder - YES
It is murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution.
3. W/N the trial court correctly found that the aggravating circumstances of
(a) advantage was taken of being a draftee in the Philippine army and (2)
abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness were present in the
commission of the crime -NO
While it is true that they were draftees, there is no evidence that when they
stopped the jeep, the accused already intended to shoot the occupants of
the vehicle. Simply stated, there was no proof that they intended to take
advantage of being a draftee in order to commit the crime. They also
cannot be charged with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence
because there was no proof that the victims had a "relation of trust and
confidence" with the accused. As stated in People vs. Comendador, in order
for abuse of confidence to be considered an aggravating circumstance, it is
necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the
accused and the one against whom the crime was committed and the
accused made use of such relationship to commit the crime."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO RODAS, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 75881
August 28, 2007
Facts:
On August 9, 1996, the victim Titing Asenda was at Milaub, Denoyan,
Zamboanga del Norte, to help his brother, Danilo Asenda, in the harvesting
of the latter's corn. On the same day, at around 8:00 in the evening, a benefit
dance at Milaub was being held. Among those roaming in the vicinity of the
dance hall were Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot. They stopped and hung
out near the fence to watch the affair. Titing Asenda was standing near them.
They saw Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Jr., and Jose Rodas,
Sr. surround Titing Asenda. Suddenly, without a word, Charlito Rodas,
armed with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back. Armando Rodas then
clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape. Thereafter,
Jose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the latter used in
hacking Titing. Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but
Armando Rodas prevented them by pointing a gun at them. Titing died
instantly from his injuries.
The lower court convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of murder,
which the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.
Issue:
Whether evident premeditation, nocturnity and abuse of superior strength
attended the killing.
Held:
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be
established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2)
an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and
(3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the
accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of
premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In the case at
bar, the prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements.
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered against
appellants. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it
facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken
advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of
this aggravating circumstance is the obscurity afforded by, and not merely
the chronological onset of, nighttime.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the
killing. There was glaring disparity of strength between the victim and the
four accused. The victim was unarmed while the accused were armed with a
hunting knife, chako and bolo. It is evident that the accused took advantage
of their combined strength to consummate the offense. This aggravating
circumstance, though, cannot be separately appreciated because it is
absorbed in treachery.
Judgment is affirmed with modification.

PEOPLE VS DAMASO
[G.R. No. L-30116]
November 20, 1978
Facts: Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio
Espejo are convicted of robbery with double homicide.
On November 21, 1959, 9:00pm, Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law
Victoriano de la Cruz heard their dogs barking outside their house, and two
armed men entered, pointed their weapons at them, tied up Victoriano and
covered him; they asked Donata for the whereabouts of her daughter Catalina
Sabado. Donata kept silent and blocked the door leading to her daughter's
room but was promptly pushed aside. She was ordered to open an "aparador"
from which they took jewelry, clothing, documents, and cutting instruments.
The two men brought Catalina Sabado down from the house and then asked
where they could find the other daughter Susana Sabado who was then in her
store nearby. Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening the door to Susana's
store, and Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked him to go to the
store to see if her daughters were there; both women could not be found. It
was only the following morning, in a sugar plantation, the women were found
already dead with wounds in several parts of their bodies.
Contention of the Accused: The accused contends that the crime was not
attended by the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery and
uninhabited place.
possibility of success. The fact that the bodies of Catalina and Susana were
found dead with their arms tied behind their backs as well as the admission
of Gregorio in his confession that he killed the sisters while their arms were
held by Eugenio and Damaso lead SC to believe the offense was done under
treacherous circumstances.
The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the
nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of
commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the
sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and
passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any
assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is
clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field
although they could have disposed of them right in the house of Donata
Rebolledo where they were found.
Decision is affirmed; penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period with
three AC found by the trial court, to wit: commission by a band, done with
treachery, and in an uninhabited place. There is likewise the additional
aggravating circumstance that the robbery was committed in the dwelling of
the victim.

Issue: Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance to aggravate

criminal liability

Decision: AC of band exists whenever more than three armed malefactors

act together in the commission of an offense. It was found that Damaso,
Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio were armed during the commission of the
crime. In this case, the presence of an armed band is to be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance (Art 14(6), RPC) inasmuch as the crime
committed was that provided for and penalized in Art 294(1) and not under
Art 295, RPC.
Treachery is present if the victim is killed while bound in such a manner as
to be deprived of the opportunity to repel the attack or escape with any
US vs. Manalinde (14 Phil 77)
Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Saturday, March 17, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: The accused, Manalinde, who pleaded guilty confessed that his wife died about one hundred
days before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he
would meet in the town; that if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty
woman on his return; that in order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the town of Cotobato,
he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves; that he traveled for a day and a
night from his home; that upon reaching the town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard named Igual,
and immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman named Choa, who was close by; and that he had no
quarrel with the assaulted persons. Both victims died as a result.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is established by the facts.

Held: YES. Those facts establish the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

The three requisites of evident premeditation are illustrated by the facts:

First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition that he would turn hurmentado
and kill the first two persons he would meet in the market place. On said date, theoffender is said to
have determined the crime.

Second requisite: He undertook the journey to comply therewith and provided himself with a weapon.
The journey and the carrying of the weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his
determination to commit the crime.

Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a night, he killed the victims. One day and one night
constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated
act.
People vs Ilaoa (cruelty)
i dont like posting case digests here pero hindi lang tlga ako makamove on sa case na to..

Facts: Nestor de Loyola, Ruben and Rogelio Ilaoa were having a drinking spree when Ruben and
Nestor engaged in an argument. Nestor was then kicked and mauled by Ruben and his brother Rodel
and Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang. Thereafter he was dragged to Rubens apartment. Ruben and
Julius later borrowed the tricycle of a certain Alex Villamil. Ruben was seen driving the tricycle with a
sack in the sidecar that looked like it contained a human body.

The decapitated body of Nestor de Loyola was found in a grassy portion at Tinio St., Angeles
City. Apart from the decapitation, the decease bore 43 stab wounds in the chest as well as slight
burns all over the body. The head was found 2 feet away from the corpse (ihhhhhhh)

Defense: Ruben claims that the sack contained buntot ng pusa, a local term for marijuana, not a
human body, which he delivered to a designated place in Fields Avenue as a favor to
his compadre Nestor de Loyola whom he could not refuse.

Issue: Whether or not the crime was attended with cruelty

Held: NO. The fact that Nestors decapitated body bearing 43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal,
was found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that
Ruben, for his pleasure and satisfaction, cause Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain. Number of wound alone is not the criterion for the appreciation
of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that the
victims body was dismembered.

this is so whatever, 43 stab wounds, decapitated body-and a head at that is not

cruelty????? oh common!
peole vs. Sangalang (August 30, 1974)
Treachery here not considered as an aggravating but as an element that qualified murder.
Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Monday, March 12, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic
Mind The circumstance of Band was not appreciated since US v Abelinde ruled that band

Facts: Around 6:00 in the morning of June 8, 1968, Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut to gather is absorbed by Treachery. No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, therefore reclusion

tuba from a coconut tree nearby. Flora Sarno, his wife, was left inside the hut. While he was perpetua. RTC affirmed.

on top of the tree gathering tuba, a group of five men each armed with a longfirearm, fired

volley of shots on him. He fell to the ground from the treetop. One of the five men was

recognized by Cortezs wife Flora and her brother Ricardo as Laureano Sangalang who was

using a Grand Carbine. Sangalang was the only one apprehended.

CFI convicted Sangalang of the crime of murder, penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Sangalang was guilty of murder

(2) Whether or not TREACHERY can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance to the

murder.

Held:

(1) Yes. Court gave credence to the consistent and unwavering testimonies of victims widow

Flora and brother-in-law Ricardo who positively identified Sangalang as one of the killers.

(2) Yes. The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree. He was

unarmed and defenseless, nor was he able to give any provocation. This deliberate surprise

attack indicated that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode of execution

which insured the killing without any risk to them arising from any defense which the victim

could have resorted to.

 b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the house of
the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;
People vs. Empacis (G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993) c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house,
Article 14 Paragraph 14, Craft, Fraud or Disguise be employed in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine;
e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle;
FACTS: f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for drink of water.

At about 9PM of Sept 16, 1986, as victim Fidel Saromines and his Wife Camila were about to
close their small store in Cebu, 2 men, Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis, came and
asked to buy some sardines and rice. After they finished eating, Langomez told Fidel to sell him
some cigarettes. He then announced a hold-up and ordered Fidel to give up his money. The
latter started to hand him PhP12K but suddenly decided to fight to keep it. A struggle followed in
the course of w/c Langomez stabbed Fidel about 3x. Empacis joined in and w/ his own knife also
stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside the house. It was only when Peter,
Fidels 13-yr old son, saw his father fighting for his life and rushed to his fathers defense w/ a
pinuti (a long bolo) striking Empacis and inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2 men flee. Fidel died
from the fatal injuries, w/c penetrated his lungs and heart. Empacis went to the clinic of Dr
Eustaquio for the treatment of his wounds inflicted by Peter. He told the doctor that he was
assaulted w/o warning by a young man near the Papan Market.

The next day, police officers went looking for a man who might have been treated for wounds
from a bladed weapon. They came to Dr Eustaquios clinic who told them about Empacis. He
was found at the public market taking breakfast & there they arrested him. He admitted going to
the store of Fidel but denied having joined Langomez in his attack. He asserts that he tried to
stop him but the latter succeeded in stabbing Fidel. He further alleges that he was brought by his
neighbors to the clinic. The other 2 men, who were accused of firing the gun from outside, denied
any participation in the crime. They were both absolved by the court. Langomez disappeared &
could not be found.

The Court finds the accused Crisologo Empacis guilty of robbery with homicide as defined and
penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, and considering the attendance of the
four generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud and superior
strength, not offset by any mitigating or extenuating circumstance, hereby sentences the said
accused Crisologo Empacis to the supreme penalty of death.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of craft, fraud or disguise be appreciated in the
case.

HELD:

The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud 23 was properly appreciated against Empacis. He
and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext
gained entry into the latter's store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held
stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g:
where the accused

a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence of their
prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed;