You are on page 1of 20

Aggravating Circumstances Continuation

c) Dwelling
People vs Almoguerra
On May 9, 1994, spouses Florentino and Lily Julaton went to the polling precinct at Barangay
Pia, San Jacinto, Masbate, to cast their votes in the barangay elections. They left at home their
three (3) children, namely: Gina, 14 years old, Lyn, 8 years old and Rey, 7 years old to watch
their store and instructed them prevent strangers from entering their house.
Taking advantage of the said election where most of residents were at the polling precinct,
Charlie Almoguerra and Dante Anton allegedly conspired together and mutually helped each
other to enter Julaton’s residence killing Gina Julaton (14), Lyn Julaton (8), Rey (2) with use of a
bladed weapon (machete) and thereafter took away the amount of 15, 000 in different
denomination and coins kept in the Julaton’s baul.
Contention of the Accused:
Denied the commission of the crime. No aggravating circumstance of dwelling to be appreciated
as well.
Contention of the State:
Guilty of robbery with homicide and dwelling is appreciated as an Aggravating Circumstance.
(Police investigation established that the dead bodies of Gina and Rey Julaton were found inside
the kitchen while that of Lyn Julaton was inside the bedroom. The amount of P15,000.00 was
missing from spouses Julatons wooden chest or baul that was forcibly opened)
From the circumstantial evidence offered by the prosecution, it is clear that both appellants are
guilty and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. Appellant’s deliberate
intrusion in the privacy of the Julatons domicile shows perversity.
In People vs. Feliciano, dwelling is considered aggravating in robbery with homicide because
this kind of robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of
the house.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659, the
prescribed penalty for robbery with homicide is composed of two indivisible penalties, reclusion
perpetua to death. Considering that in the present case, there is the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling that attended the commission of the crime, we impose upon the appellants the supreme
penalty of death.

People vs Daniela:
People involved:
• Ronito Enero- Killed/victim
• Maria Fe- Common law wife of Ronito
• Leo Quilongquilong – helper/cousin of Marie Fe
• Julifer Barrera(tomboy)- house helper (raped) *both Julifer and Leo lived with the couple
and their children
• Manuel Daniela (friend of Ronito in davao city, years back) and Jose Baylosis- Accused ​
Crime Scene: House of Ronito and Maria Fe in Sawang, Calero, Pasil, Cebu City

The couple own a stall in their nearby market selling fish. Where Manuel and Ronito
visited to ask where the couple lives. Maria told them where they live, ever since Manuel and
Ronito would gave them a visit to borrow some money.
On March 30, 1996 when Ronito, Maria , Leo and Julifier had just taken their dinner
when Manuel and Jose arrived. Mauel asked Ronito to lend him money but the couple refused.
Ronito, Mauel and Jose then had a drinking spree in the sala . While Maria Fe, Julifier and Leo
went to sleep. Ronito was already inebriated. Went to sleep in their room with Maria, Maria set
up a mat to Manuel and Jose to sleep on.
At around 2:00 a.m. of March 31, 1996, Manuel, armed with a .38 caliber gun and
holding a flourescent lamp, entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe. He poked the said gun
on Maria Fe. Jose tied up Maria Fe and Leo. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her
necklace, rings and earrings and then ransacked the room but failed to find money.Julifier woke
up but threatened by the accused. Maria Fe threatened and petrified took the money from her
waist pouch and gave the same to them. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito
with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of
him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his
body. Ronito could only groan like a dying pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose
slit the throat of Ronito and took the latters wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer,
removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. She could do nothing but cry.

Contention of the State: found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH to be carried
out in the manner prescribed by law.

Contention of the Accused: The Trial Court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death
when the aggravating circumstances of night and dwelling were not duly proven.
Resolution: The trial court correctly appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance against
the appellants. This Court held that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy
the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong is
guiltier than he who offends him elsewhere. However, dwelling is not aggravating in this case
as it was not alleged in the amended information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised
Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved
otherwise, even if proved but not alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by
the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused. Although the rule took effect
only on December 1, 2000, however, the same may be applied retroactively. The crime was
committed at nighttime. However, there is no evidence that the appellants took advantage of the
darkness of the night in committing the crime or that nighttime facilitates the commission of the
crime. Indeed, the evidence on record shows that when appellant Manuel barged into the room of
Maria Fe and Ronito, he was holding a kerosene lamp.
Held: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis are
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide defined in Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

People vs Bagsit
On 12 September 1999, prosecution witness Richard Sison and his younger sister Heidi were
watching television inside their house at Bgy. Soro-soro, Ilaya, Batangas City. When Richard
looked out of the window, he saw a man whom he identified as Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at
his father Pepito Sison who was then closing the front door of their house. The barrel of the gun
held by Angelito protruded thru their grilled window. Not for long, Richard heard a gunshot and
almost simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. With the help of his mother
Teodora who came from his grandfather’s house next door, Richard rushed his father to the
hospital where he died shortly after.
Contention of the State: The accused is found guilty of murder and is sentenced to death.
Contention of the Accused: Angelito Bagsit denied having anything to do with the death of
Pepito Sison. He averred that in the evening of 12 September 1999 he became drunk after
a drinking bout with Dante. Bagsit and a certain Marcos Barte who hired him earlier that
morning to take care of his piggery. Heremembered having left the house of Marcos Barte at
around eleven o’clock in the evening. He recounted that he failed to reach his house, a mere 10-
minute walk, because it was already very dark. Instead, he spent the night leaning on a fence by
the house of one Felix Agdon. When he finally arrived home at around five o’clock the
following morning his wife told him about the shooting of Pepito and that some police officers
were looking for him.
Resolution: It is dogmatic that the positive identification of the accused, where categorical and
consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the
matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. Richard Sison
and Angelito Bagsit were no strangers to each other. Richard Sison would not have imputed a
crime as serious as murder if he were not truly convinced that in the hands of that person dripped
the blood of his father.
Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is likewise aggravating. The triggerman
showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside
the latter’s own house when he could have very well committed the crime without
necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victim’s home. He who goes to another’s house
to hurt him or do him wrong is guiltier than he who offends him elsewhere. For the
circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense - it is enough that the
victim was attacked inside his own abode, although the assailant might have devised means
to perpetrate the assault from the outside.

1. Time of Commission
a) Nighttime
People vs Avendano
On July 29, 1997, Jeffre Castillo saw Willerie Avendano in their house, looking for his plow and
asking if he knew who got it, to which he replied that he did not. Before they slept, he recalled
they had an overnight lamp which was turned on. That night, He was suddenly awakened when
he heard a commotion. However, by the time he woke up, the room was very dark because the
lamp was already turned off. He heard his mother shout for help. When he heard the commotion
he immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows and tried to hide. Then he heard
somebody going downstairs. His brother Melvin lit the lamp, while Jeffre stayed where he was.
He then heard the person downstairs going up again. He saw through his blanket that the person
had come up. That was when he distinctly heard his brother Melvin pleading: “Kuya Willie, tama
na, tama na!” That was just before Melvin was killed. Jeffre recalled that someone coughed and
he recognized the cough as that of Willerie. He recognized it because he had heard a similar
cough on several occasions in the past when appellant frequented their house. He remained
where he was until appellant left. (In the course of his testimony, Jeffre was shown a green t-shirt
and a pair of shorts which he recognized as those Willerie Avendano wore the night of the
incident when appellant went to their house earlier in the evening.)

Invoked denial and alibi. (Testimony of a child)

A minor’s testimony will suffice to convict a person accused of a crime so long as it is credible.
((1) capacity of observation; (2) capacity of recollection; and (3) capacity of communication).

The court finds appellants defense of denial and alibi unavailing. But the trial court appreciated
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Of the three,
however, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information, thus the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry cannot be appreciated, since they were not alleged
in the information.
As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially
sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the
commission of the crime by ensuring the offenders immunity from identification or
capture. In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately
sought the cover of the night to commit the offense.

The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for,
by, and of itself. Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof
as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of

People vs Caloza
Dionisio was a tenant of a farm who lived in bakod bayan, cabanatuan city; together with is wife
Edna (16yrs) and their son mark joseph anthony ( 4- 8 mos). one early morning at 5 a.m while
Allan was about 100 meters away going to the place of Dionisio his elder brother; because they
had an agreement that allan would help dionisio till the field. On his way, he saw rafael who was
covered with blood, who suddenly ran away.
Allan hurriedly went to the place of his bro Dionisio, only to find out that the 3 of them had been
man slaughtered.
AC: Rafael contends that during that early morning, he and his 2 friends were having a drinking
spree. They then asked dionisio for pulutan ( one of his ducks/ chickens). Dionisio denied. When
rafael came back to their place, he heard a commotion. He went back to the place of Dionisio,
only to find out that his compadres killed Dionisio and his family.
He identified the accused as Dondo and the other one wasn’t mentioned.
SC: it wasn’t impossible that someone else could have killed the victims.
1 it was only him during the time Allan saw him
2 there were signs of bloodstains
3 the accused did not report the accident immediately
Note: there should be the aggravating circumstance of using night time as to perform the
act and the use of superior strength
Held: for night time to be aggravating the offender must
1. Sought for the particular time and to be taken advantage off
2. Facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offenders immunity from capture
The following wasn’t proved to the court
Nonetheless on the part of the infant it was obvious that there was the taking advantage of
superior strength. Hence, would fall under treachery

People vs Oco

Hermigildo Damuag was driving his motorcycle while Alden Abiabi was seated behind. A white
tamaraw FX blocked their path and thus they slowed down. Another motorcycle appeared and
started shooting. Abiabi was killed as a result of the gunshotswhile Damuag was wounded. There
was also another motorcycle that passed Damuag, with the driver firing shots at Damuag.
Damuag was thrown off his bike and fell to the gutter. He saw that the driver of this motorcycle
is Oco. He was able to identify him because he was only wearing a towel around his head, unlike
the other riders who were wearing helmets. Damuag ran towards safety while being chased by
Oco, who was on his bike. He was brought to the hospital and he had his wounds treated. He
survived because of prompt medical assistance.

Crime: The crime of murder(Abiabi) and frustrated murder(Damuag).

Contention of the accused: Oco raised the defense alibi saying that he was not there at the
crime scene.

Contention of the state : Oco is surely guilty of murder and frustrated murder and the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime is present.

Ruling: The court did not agree with the lower court in considering the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime. It is only considered aggravating when it facilitated the
commission of the crime, or was sought or taken as an advantage for the purpose of
impunity. Although the crime was committed at night, it does not become a modifying
factor when the place is adequately lighted and it does not constitute immunity from

People vs Mactal
Appellant and the deceased were married. However, their union was not a happy one, because of
frequent violent quarrels due to appellants drinking, gambling and womanizing. The couple
separated a number of times but deceased Evelyn always came back to her husband in spite of
the physical abuse because she loved him. On the night of the incident at around 7:00 p.m.,
appellant's brother-in-law, Romeo Rivera, whose house was right beside the couples, heard the
couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was used to their arguments.
At around midnight, appellant went to Rivera's house to check whether his wife Evelyn was
there. Rivera did not reply but instead asked if the two had a quarrel. The appellant answered in
the negative. Rivera, his wife and appellant conversed in the Rivera's garage for about 30
minutes. After this, the Rivera couple returned to their house and went to sleep. At around 1:00
a.m., Alfred Young, on board a tricycle, was passing by appellant's house. From a distance of 15
meters, he saw Evelyn seated on a wooden chair in front of the window of the house. She
appeared lifeless because her head was hanging. At about the same time, Romeo Adayo, who
was walking home, saw appellant. The latter was about 20 steps away from him, carrying the
body of his wife Evelyn over his right shoulder, face up, with the head at appellant's back and the
legs in front. Appellant was walking very fast towards a dark street. As Adayo was very tired
after his trip from Manila, he did not call appellant and just continued walking. The body of
Evelyn was discovered by a neighbor at around 5:00 a.m., 15 meters away from her house.


Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, as charged, attended by the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and for having taken advantage of his superior
strength in the commission of the crime, accused Ronnie Mactal is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death by lethal injection


Appellant denied the charges against him and testified that the last time he saw his wife
alive was at 8:30 p.m. in their house because at 9:00 p.m., he went to sleep. He denied being seen
by prosecution witnesses Young and Adayo as he was already asleep at 1:00 a.m. He denied that
he beat up his wife and presented his son, Ronald, and his mother, Estrella Mactal, to corroborate
this fact. Ronald testified that his father loved his wife Evelyn very much and could not have
possibly killed her.

The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
abuse of superior strength against appellant. As pointed out by the Solicitor General: Nighttime
could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where no evidence was presented
showing that nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken advantage of by
him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from captive.
Likewise, abuse of superior strength requires, at base, a deliberate intent on the part of the male
factor to take advantage thereof. There must be a situation of strength notoriously selected and
made use of by the offender in the commission of the crime. Moreover, abuse of superior
strength cannot be appreciated in this case because it is inherent in the crime of parricide as it is
generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife. There being no
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.

b) On the Occasion of a Calamity

2. Personal Circumstances of Offender
a) Recidivism
People vs Baldera
At about 4 a.m. on December 23, 1947, a Casa Manila bus loaded with passenger left
Batangas, bound for Manila. On the highway in barrio Calansayan, municipality of San Jose,
Batangas, it was held up by a group of five or six armed men. One of them is Pedro Baldera, who
was then armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed by a hail of bullets
coming from different directions. As a result, several passengers, among them Jose Cabrera, Jose
Pastor and Francisco Mendoza, were wounded. After the firing had ceased, appellant got on the
bus, threatening the passengers with his gun, took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana
Villena. Another passenger named Francisco Mendoza was also relieved of his P3. Appellant
then alighted and ordered the bus to proceed, whereupon the driver headed for the municipal
building of San Jose and there reported the incident to the authorities. The wounded were taken
to the hospital, where Jose Cabrera died from his wounds on the following day. Jose Pastor, who
was wounded in the left leg, was cured in two months, while Francisco Mendoza's gunshot
wound in the right shoulder healed in 15 days. The four persons were prosecuted and tried under
an information charging "robo en cuadrilla con homicidio y lesiones graves y lesiones menos
graves." Ponciana identified appellant as the one who relieved her of her money at gunpoint,
saying that she had a good look at his face for she was watching him closely for fear that he
might fire at her.

Contention of the Accused: Appellant denies participation in the crime charged, declaring that
he passed the night in question in a house of prostitution in Batangas, where he was employed by
the prostitutes for drawing water.

Contention of the State: The point is really not material because in the crime of robbery with
homicide it is not essential that the robbery be in band, although that circumstance may be taken
into account as an aggravation in the imposition of the penalty. And even if it be not be taken
into account as such in this case, there would still remain the other aggravating circumstance that
the robbery was perpetrated by attacking a vehicle (art. 295, R. P. C.), which is not offset by any
mitigating circumstance. The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the
accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of his previous conviction for theft, it
appearing that crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947 while the offense now
charged took place seven days before that date.

Appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious
physical injuries with two aggravating circumstances. But there being no sufficient vote to
impose the extreme penalty, appellant can be sentenced to life imprisonment only.
Wherefore, reducing appellant's sentence to life imprisonment but increasing the indemnity to be
paid by him to the heirs of the deceased Jose Cabrera to P6,000.

b) Reiteration or Habitually
People vs Gaorana
On March 5, 1991, before 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, Marivel Fuentes, herein private
complainant, was cleaning her house located at DAPECOL, Panabo, Davao. At the same time,
she was also putting her younger brother and sister to sleep. Rowena Sanchez, common-law wife
of appellant, arrived and instructed her to go to her house which was about 20 meters away.
Marivel finished cleaning before she proceeded to Rowenas place.
When Marivel arrived in appellants house, she saw appellant and Rowena lying down. Rowena
bade her to come in and told her to sit down. Rowena then stood up and told private complainant
that she would urinate. Appellant approached Marivel, covered her mouth and pointed a hunting
knife to her neck. He told her that he would kill her if she would tell her mother. Private
complainant fought appellant but appellant pulled her inside a room. Appellant made her lie
down on the floor. Appellant then took off his pants and opened her duster and removed her
panty. He put himself on top of private complainant and had intercourse with her. All the while,
private complainant’s mouth was covered with a handkerchief.
The second incident of rape occurred at around 3:00 oclock in the morning of March 6,
1991. Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her brother and sister when she was awakened by the
kisses of appellant. Appellant had a knife which scared Marivel. Appellant pulled Marivel from
the mat, removed his pants, opened her duster and removed her panty, and again had intercourse
with her. Marivel did not shout because she was afraid of appellant who was a prisoner and had
already killed somebody. After satisfying his lust, appellant left.

ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Accused ALBERTO GAORANA, 27 years old, live-in partner

of Rowena and a prisoner, testified that he came to know Marivel Fuentes in 1989. He met her in
their store, being a living but prisoner, [and] he worked as a carpenter in the house of Fuentes
family in DAPECOL in 1990. At about 2 p.m. of March 5, 1991, he was in their house sleeping
with his common-law-wife. He woke up at 4 0clock in the afternoon. His wife was still with him
when he woke up. On said date he did not see or meet Marivel Fuentes. What Marivel Fuentes
are saying against him are not true because he was sleeping at that time with his wife.

STATE’S CONTENTION: The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimony of
complainant who was not shown to have any motive to falsely testify against appellant. It ruled
that it was improbable that a naive and inexperienced 15-year old girl would fabricate her own
ravishment and subject herself to the humiliation and embarrassment of a public trial if her
charges were not true. Further, her testimony was corroborated by Dr. Bendijo who, after
conducting physical examination on her, found that her hymen was no longer intact. Her positive
and categorical testimony prevailed over appellant’s bare denial and alibi. The trial court also
ruled that appellant had a motive to commit the crime. Complainants parents supposedly failed to
give him their payment for his common-law wifes laundry services.

RESOLUTION: The complainant positively identified appellant as her ravisher. The first rape
was committed in the afternoon at appellants house where there was sufficient light to
identify the culprit. Despite the relatively dark sites when the second rape was committed,
complainant knew that the malefactor was appellant because there was sufficient moonlight;
besides, she was familiar with him, as he had been their neighbor for a long time. Appellant’s
alibi that he was at home sleeping during the second incident is negligible, because he failed to
prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. His house and that of
the complainant were only 20 meters apart. Further, it was undisputed that appellant had access
to the house of the complainant because he had constructed its door. The trial court ruled that
appellant had a motive in raping the complainant. This is a surplusage, considering that motive is
not necessary in rape cases when the felon has been positively identified. Appellant alleged that
the complainant’s mother instigated the charges against him, because she did not pay for the
laundry services of his common-law wife. Such bizarre reasoning does not explain why a mother
would subject her young daughter to the shame, scandal, embarrassment and anxiety
concomitant with a prosecution for rape. Indeed, complainant and her mother could not have
been impelled by any motive other than to bring to justice the author of the sexual assault.

People vs Baldogo
The accused Gonzalo Baldogo and Edgar Bermas who were both serving time for the
crime Murder at the Iwahig Penal Colony, were employed as domestic helpers by Julio Camacho
Sr. One evening while their master was away, they killed his son Jorge and kidnapped his
daughter Julie whom they took to the mountains and detained her for more than five days,
contrary to law and attended by the aggravating circumstance of Recidivism. Upon arraignment,
the accused Baldogo pleaded not guilty. Bermas on the other hand died before he could be


The burden of proof lies in the prosecution to prove the aggravating circumstance of quasi-
recidivism by the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.
*In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in
evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove
that the said judgment had become final and executory.

RULING: The prosecution adduced/presented in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison
record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of Homicide by the Regional Trial
Court of Baguio City with a penalty which he was serving at the Iwahig Penal Colony. The
excerpt of the prison record is not the best evidence under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court, to prove the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and to prove
that said judgment had become final and executor. Said excerpt is merely secondary or
substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible, absent proof that the original of the judgment had
been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution.
Therefore the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism cannot be appreciated in this

Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense;
Penalty. - Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for
the new felony.Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal,
shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his
conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document

3. Price, Promise, or Reward

4. Means of Commission
a) Taking Advantage of Public Office

People vs Sumaoy
According to the witness Wilbert Vargas, brother of the deceased Zandro Vargas, at 6:00
p.m., on July 9, 1988, while he was talking to a friend on Roxas Street near the public market, he
was told that his brother Zandro was being beaten up in a carinderia at the corner of Roxas and
Sobrecary Streets. Wilbert immediately proceeded to the J Spot Carinderia and saw accused-
appellant Pacifico Sumaoy aiming his gun at Zandro as the latter was running away. Pacifico
shot Zandro, hitting the latter in the forearm, and causing him to fall on his knees. Zandro
Pacifico and three unidentified men towards a tricycle. Wilbert tried to help his brother but
Pacifico pointed his gun at him. Later that evening, Zandro was found dead in a kangkong field
near the Davao Visayan Village.
Wilbert Vargas identified Pacifico Sumaoy as one of the assailants. Wilbert testified that
he recognized Sumaoy because the latter was assigned to the military detachment in the
Diwalwal mining area where Wilbert used to work.

Pacifico Sumaoy guilty of murder. The trial court appreciated the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position against accused-appellan Sumaoy.

Pacifico claims that the whole day of July 9, 1988 he was on duty as an enlisted
personnel of the 1103 Criminal Investigation Services (CIS) in Tagum, Davao. Accused-
appellant identified a document signed by Technical Sergeant Ricardo Go called Duty Detail
showing that accused-appellant was on duty from 8:00 a.m. of July 9, 1988 to 8:00 a.m. of July
10, 1988.

RESOLUTION: (*kahit di na isulat, remember na lang* The circumstantial evidence in

this case establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant shot and killed
Zandro Vargas. But while the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the guilt of Pacifo
for the killing of Zandro, he cannot be held liable for murder because of the absence of
evidence as to the manner of the actual killing. Hence the decision was modified to
homicide.) The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of official position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance requires that
the accused, as a public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for the
purpose of committing the crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without
occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public position. In the case before us, no
evidence was adduced to show that the killing of Zandro vargas was in any way facilitated by the
accused-appellants public position. It was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore
his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the crime

People vs Gapasin
According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of
Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 P.M. of October 6, 1979 after attending the "pamisa" for the
deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the
barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the
ground, appellant fired more shots at him. Thereafter, accused Amor Saludares planted a .22
caliber revolver on the left hand of Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran to
succor her fallen husband. Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused
Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito
who would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as the
Saludares' group chased them.


They were guilty for the murder of Jerry Calpito.


Appellant invokes self-defense, that he was issued a mission order to investigate a report
regarding the presence of armed men Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. That when they
confronted Jerry Calpito, instead of answering, drew his firearm and fired at them, unfortunately
he missed because he dropped his armalite while firing, so they fired back at him and killed him.

The court ruled out the defense of self-defense because of the nature and number of wounds
inflicted to the victim. They were guilty of murder with aggravating circumstances of taking
advantage of public position because the appellant, a member of the Philippines Constabulary,
committed the crime with an armalite, which was issued to him when he received the
mission order.
Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant’s favor but this if offset by the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position.

b) Insult to Public Authority

People vs Tiongsan
At about 5:30PM, 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. Tiongson asked Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
police force who was guarding them, asked him if he can allow them to go out to answer the call
of nature. Gelera agreed. While in the act of escaping, Rudy Tiongson, took Gelera’s pistol and
with treachery, shot him on his right cheek which caused his death. At about 6PM, Tiongson, ambushed, waylaid, and shot PC Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed
in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who went in pursuit of them which caused his death.


Both offenses were qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the
circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities,
and with abuse of superior strength. The second murder is aggravated by the circumstance of its
commission in an uninhabited place.


Killing of a police man and a PC Constable does not constitute the aggravating circumstance of
contempt of public authorities. Police men and PC Constables are not persons in authority, but
merely agents of a person in authority.

The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult
to the public authorities cannot be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela
were the ones against whom the crimes were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable
Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. Instead of
murder, they were just charged of homicide.

As stated in Art.152 of the RPC:
“Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or governmental corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in
"Any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader,
and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a
person in authority."

Requisites for the crime to be considered “in contempt or with insult to the public
1. Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
2. He who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against
whom the crime is committed
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act

People vs Magduena
Facts: On October 15, 1980, as soon as Fiscal Fernando Dilig had placed himself in the driver’s
seat of his jeep parked near his house, two gunshots burst in the air, as the gunman coming from
his left side aimed and poured shots into his body, inflicting two fatal wounds that caused his
instantaneous death.
Contention of the State: Hermogenes Magdueño was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and aggravated by price or
reward and by the crime being committed in contempt of/or with insult to public authority.
Contention of the Accused: He killed the victim for a price or reward.
Resolution: The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public
authority does not seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be
considered it must not only be shown that the crime was not committed in the presence of
the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority
himself. In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public authority involved in the crime, was the
victim. Hence, the lower court, erred in including commission of the crime with insult to
public authority as an aggravating circumstance. Considering the presence of an aggravating
circumstance and the absence of any mitigating circumstance attending the offense, the lower
court imposed the proper penalty on the appellant. The crime in this case is a particularly heinous
one. The appellant is shown by the records as a heartless contract killer. Upon being paid for a
job, he had no compunctions about traveling all the way to Palawan from Manila, stalking and
liquidating an unwary victim whose only fault was to perform his duties faithfully
c) Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex
People vs Paraiso
Eyewitness Sheila Marie Alipio, then 18 years old, is the niece of the victim. Sheila
testified that at around 1:30 in the afternoon, she went to the house of her aunt Lolita to deliver a
one-gallon water container. At the main door of her aunt’s house, she saw two (2) men, including
Paraiso, standing about a meter away from her. She rang the doorbell and after a while, her aunt
opened the door. All of a sudden, one of the two men pushed her inside the house. She stumbled
and when she looked back, she saw one of them pointing a gun at her aunt’s right temple. He
allegedly wore navy blue maong pants, a round-neck t-shirt colored sky blue, red rubber shoes
and a black cap over his head; he was fair-complexioned with somewhat sunken cheeks. Sheila
later identified this man in court as the accused-appellant Paraiso.
Sheila further testified that the other man was armed with a Batangas knife which he
poked at her right side. They were herded upstairs into one of the rooms, together with her
cousins, Epifanio, Jr., Ferdinand and Kim. Paraiso was allegedly holding Lolita and asked for the
key; he likewise ordered the victim to open the cabinet and ransacked and searched the same. He
asked where the money was placed but Lolita took from her pocket the amount of P200.00 which
she handed to Paraiso saying that it’s the only amount she had. Paraiso likewise took jewelries,
wristwatch and video camera. Paraiso and his companion brought Lolita to the bathroom and
ransacked the cabinet. Paraiso later ordered his companion to cover Sheila and her cousins with
pillows. Sheila peeped through the pillows and saw Ferdinand being tied up. Her aunt pleaded
with the perpetrators not to harm the children. Later, Sheila saw her aunt being taken her cousin’s
room but her aunt came back bloodied and clutching her breast. Lolita collapsed after looking at
each one of them.

ISSUE: whether the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victim by
reason of her sex is appreciated.
NO. This aggravating circumstance can be considered only in crimes against persons and
honor. The special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is a crime against property not
against persons. Nonetheless, even if such aggravating circumstance could be considered in this
case, it cannot be appreciated because nothing appears in the record from which it may be
presumed that in the commission of the crime, appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult
the age or sex of the offended party. Moreover, such an aggravating circumstance would be
absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

People vs Arizobal
On the evening of March 24, 1994, Laurencio Jimenez ordered his wife, Clementina
Jimenez, to open the door because there were persons outside the door. Upon opening the door,
she was confronted by 3 armed men pointing guns at her, two of which are identified as Clarito
Arizobal and Erly Lignes. They ransacked their cabinet until they found Php8,000
On the same night, the said armed men also appeared at Erlinda and Jimmy Gimenez’s house
while the latter was skinning a chicken. They consumed cigarettes, food, and a Php1,000 cash
from the Erlinda’s sari sari store.
They then dragged Jimmy Gimenez together with Laurencio Gimenez. Moments later, they
heard a burst of gunfire which caused the death of the two. The culprits claim that they were
killed because they tried to escape.

STATE: The accused-appellants are charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide for robbing
and slaying Laurencio and Jimmy Gimenez. (Aggravating circumstances by a band of
malefactors, treachery, nighttime, and dwelling)

ACCUSED: They claim the discredit of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies by underscoring
their alleged, inconsistent, and incredible alibi. They also claimed a defense of alibi.

The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as a mitigating circumstance. The robbers
demonstrated and impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victim’s abode when they forced
their way in, looted their houses, coerced the inhabitants for submission, and killing Laurencio
and Jimmy

(PS: Under po si Arizobal ng Disregard of Rank, Age, or Sex. Kaso kahit ilang beses ko na
basahin ung case. Wala siyang konek hahaha. Read it yourself nlang din para maniwala
kayo huhu)

People vs Bajar
Facts: That on or about the 16th day of August 1999, at about 8:00 oclock in the evening, at sitio
Mohon, Barangay Mambayaan, Municipality of Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental,
Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85 year old Aquilio Tiwanak,
accuseds father-in-law, hitting him on the different parts of his body, which caused his
instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Aquilio Tiwanak in such
amounts as may be allowed by law. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, taking
advantage of superior strength, disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his age,
habitual intoxication and relationship attended the commission of the crime.

COTA: Alejandro testified that on the date and time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana
and Alma, and his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He proceeded to his
father-in-laws house to look for his wife. Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: Pa, good
evening. The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited him (Alejandro) to go up and see
for himself. Alejandro went up, and not finding his wife, said: She is not here Pa. Aquilio angrily
retorted: Everytime you are drunk you come here to ask me. Aquilio then suddenly clubbed
Alejandro on the head with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.

COTS: It concluded that his uncorroborated and unsubstantiated self-defense theory was self-
serving and could not stand over the positive, categorical, spontaneous, and straightforward
declarations of his daughters and wife on how Aquilio was killed. It was convinced that no wife
in her right mind would testify in a heinous crime against her husband, and no daughter in her
right mind would testify in a heinous crime against her father, unless the crime charged is true.25
Considering the presence of the generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, disregard of the
respect due to the victim by reason of his age, relationship, and habitual intoxication, the trial
court sentenced Alejandro to suffer the penalty of death and to pay the heirs of the victim
P30,000 as burial expenses; P50,000 as death indemnity; and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
Resolution: Aside from treachery, the prosecution was able to prove three aggravating
circumstances, to wit, dwelling, relationship, and disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of age.

The generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of age is considered present when the offended person, by reason of his age, could
be the father of the offender. Aquilio, by reason of his age, considered old enough to be the
father of Alejandro (who incidentally declared in open court that he was 58 years old). The
presence of this aggravating circumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore,
reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. Further, it is ingrained in Philippine
culture that those advanced in age are respected especially in the provinces.
d) Abuse of Confidence

People vs Mandolado
Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha Company, 3rd Infantry
Battalion at Pikit, North Cotabato, were accused for the murder of Herminigildo Tenorio and his
driver Nolasco Mendoza in the afternoon of October 3, 1977 at Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao

In the morning of that date, Ortillano, Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon, AFP
trainees/draftees, were passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato. After reaching
Midsayap, while still in uniform, they decided to drink ESQ rum at the bus terminal.

Erinada and Simon decided to join the accused in going to Pikit, North Cotabato, the home base
of the accused. After an hour of drinking, Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public
market. When he returned, he grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing.
Companions tried to dissuade him but Mandolado just won’t stop. Troubled enough, Erinada and
Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. The
accused followed and also boarded the same vehicle. The soldiers forced the driver to bring them
to the Midsayap crossing.
A privately owned jeep driven by Tenorio passed by with Nolasco Mendoza (passenger). The
appellants shouted at the driver, to stop vehicle and allow them to board it. While Mandolado
and Ortillano were inside the jeep, they kept on firing their guns. Tenorio remarked: “If you will
not stop firing your guns I will ram this jeep into something.”
When Mandolado learned that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North
Cotabato, he got so angry, cocked his gun and ordered the driver to stop. While the jeep was
coming to a full stop, Erinida and Simon got off the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp
which was just nearby. Appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit the
occupants of the jeep, Appellant Ortillano likewise, fired his armalite, not at the occupants of
said jeep but downwards hitting the ground. Tenorio and Nolasco Mendoza died.

Issue: Whether or not the specific circumstance of abuse of confidence may be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance

Held: NO. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that
“there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom
the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the
crime.” It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and
personal such as would give the accused undue advantage or make it easier for him to commit
the said crime.

The mere fact that the accused were under the state of intoxication, that’s why they have
committed the crime, and not the fact that they took advantage of holding a position in Philippine
*** There is nothing to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in the
Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and
had an army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in
the commission of the crimes ... "\
***REQUIREMENTS as to the Abuse of Confidence
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
e) Aid of armed Men
f) Inundation, Fire, Poison
g) Evident Premeditation

People vs Baldogo
Crime: Murder and kidnapping with serious illegal detention
Gonzalo Baldogo and Edgar Bermas were inmates of the penal colony and assigned as a
domestic helper of Comacho Family. Julio Sr. Left the house for a bible study and left Jorge and
Julie at their house. Julie proceeded to the sala to do her assignment when she was being called
by Bermas three times that her brother was calling her which she ignored. Until she heard her
brother yelling, that prompted her to go to the kitchen. She saw her brother sprawled on the
ground near the kitchen, face down and blooded, over him was Bermas armed with a bolo and
blooded shirt. When she ran Baldogo overtook her and tied her and gagged her mouth. Baldogo
dragged her to the mountains and stopped by the tamarind tree. After thirty minutes Baldogo
came with a kettle and raw rice and retrieve a bag with their clothes and belonging to the
tamarind tree.
Bermas was alleged to be maltreated by Julio Sr. That, while Gonzalo was eating for dinner,
Bermas came with a blooded shirt and armed with a bolo and confessed that he had killed Jorge
Camacho to avenge the maltreatment caused by Julio sr.
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence
of the following requisites:(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an
act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval
of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.

The prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The 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. does not constitute clear evidence that
they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein
preparatory to escaping from the penal colony. There is no evidence which shows that Gonzalo
and Bermas hid the bag under the tree. The prosecution failed to show that Gonzalo and Bermas
planned and prepare to kill Jorge and Julie and that they were determine to commit the said

People vs Delada
Danny Paredes discovered that his pedicab was missing. Cerna told him that Rogelio Delada Jr.
took his pedicab. Later, Paredes saw Delada aboard the pedicab. He accused him and said, “Why
did you steal my trisikad?” Appellant answered “Ngano, palag ka?” Paredes attempted to punch
appellant but the latter was able to dodge the blow and run towards the public market. While
Paredes was talking with Cerna and Quipanes saw Delada thrust a knife into the side of Paredes’
waist. Quipanes boarded Paredes on a motorela which brought him to the hospital.

Contention of the Accused: That the crime was committed with evident premeditation. Appellant
interposed self-defense to justify the killing of the victim, Paredes. He claimed that Paredes
entrusted the pedicab to him. He asked for Paredes’ permission to use the pedicab. He was
surprised when the victim confronted him for no reason, hitting him on the right side of the right
side of the face. When he saw Paredes scrambling for an umbrella tube with which to strike him,
he then got a knife from inside the shoe repair shop.

Contention of the State: That the accused is guilty of murder.

The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation did not attend the killing.
The prosecution was not able to show: (a) the time when the accused decided to commit the
crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination, and
(c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and its execution to allow him to
reflect upon the consequence of his act. Therefore, the accused was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
People vs Aposaga

Automatic review of the decision dated April 28, 1969 of the Court of First Instance of South
Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal Case No. 1625 for murder, imposing the death penalty on
accused-appellants Francisco Aposaga and Constancio Monte for the murder of Atty. Jose
Barranda. Atty. Jose Barranda, who as populary called as “Attorney” lives with his common law
wife Gloria Salongcong, their four children, and other four children of Gloria from her first
marriage. They live in his 36-hectare farm at Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato. Dec. 13, 1965,
deceased Attorney was last seen at 6am after they had breakfast with accused Monte. After
breakfast, they parted ways as Attorney will be heading to Dadiangas. His wife left for the same
destination a few minutes after he left. While walking on the trail to the highway, Atty. Barranda
was chased by 3 men armed with bolos or knives, who acted concertedly in hacking or stabbing
the victim to death. His lifeless body was later buried inside a dry well, while his portfolio and
personal papers were buried around 300 meters away from the body. On Jan. 20, 1956, Pio
Franciscio, father of Jesus Francisco, reported the incident to the police and pointed Aposaga,
Monte and alias Calbo, and that these three had killed the attorney.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The accused-appellants are guilty of murder. Two

testimonies were strongly credited by the lower court-one being that of Noe Cabrera ‘s testimony
and the other that of Felomena Cabrera’s testimony (both step children of deceased Attorney).
They both claimed that they saw their step father being killed by the accused-appellants. ​
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: 1.Prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. They try to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly
those of the two eyewitnesses which, they claim, are corrupt, bias, unreliable and incompetent
because of their inherent improbabilities. 2. The defense vainly tried to utilize the apparent
involvement of the prosecution witnesses Gloria and Sotera Salongcong and Jesus Francisco in
claiming a frame-up and a scheme to lay the blame on the two (2) accused-appellant 3.The
appellants likewise theorize that the prosecution witnesses Sotera Salongcong(sister of Gloria),
Jesus Francisco and probably Gloria Salongcong must have plotted against the life of the
deceased. Sotera and Jesus harbor resentment against the victim for having ousted them from
their tenancy in favor of Monte. Besides, Sotera wanted to revenge the raping of her niece by the
deceased. These are strong motives to do away with the victim, whereas the appellants have no
motive to kill him.

RESOLUTION: Decision of lower court was affirmed. The accused are guilty but penalty was
modified. While the SC agree with the observation that these 3 witnesses are probably involved
in various ways and degrees, and their exclusion from the charge is questionable, the SC cannot
find any reason to believe that the appellants are innocent as they pretend to be. As aptly held by
the trial court, "that there were principals by induction in the commission of a crime who were
not prosecuted is no legal impediment to a finding of guilt of the principals by direct
participation for the same crime. The non-prosecution of Gloria and Sotera Salongcong in the
case at bar did not make the indictees before the SC less guilty much more, innocent was to be
blessed with a judgment of acquittal"

Requisites of evident premeditation:
The prosecution must prove:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution (to allow him
to reflect on its consequences)


People vs Gialolo
​At around half past three in the early morning of April 13, 1994, prosecution witness
Desiderio Baculi was awakened by a call of nature. While urinating, he heard a voice coming
from the house of appellant Federico Gialolo, saying, what is this? He peeped through the wall of
his kitchen made of hog wire towards the house of Federico which was more or less, 20 meters
from his house. He saw the three appellants, together with the victim Jose Platon. The place was
illuminated by an incandescent lamp situated near the door outside Federico’s house. The victim
was held close by Federico Gialolo and Oscar Makabenta. Federico embraced the victims left
side with both arms, while Oscar embraced the victims right side below the waist also with both
arms. Marcos Gialolo was at the back of Jose. He pulled Jose’s hair with his left hand and then
slashed his neck with a scythe. They then left Jose who zigzagged towards a nearby coconut tree
by the side of the road, where he eventually fell. The three appellants proceeded to Federico’s
house, and switched off the light.


​The appellants cite the allegedly contradictory and unnatural testimony of eyewitness
Baculi. They also contend that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances
of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.
​It is not unbelievable for Baculi to have heard a man’s voice uttering. What is this?
Coming from the scene of the crime. The scene was a mere 20 meters away from him. It was
also 3 am in the morning when silence reigned and hence where noises were magnified.
​The trial court, however, erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation against the appellants. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the
following elements must be present: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the
crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that he has adhered to such determination and (c)
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to
reflect upon the consequence of his act. In the case at bar, no proof was presented to show any
of these elements. Nor can the aggravating circumstance of superior strength be appreciated
against the appellants. This circumstance was not alleged in the Information and hence cannot be
the subject of proof during the trial. Even disregarding this bar, abuse of superior strength is
absorbed in treachery.

h) Craft, Fraud, Disguise

People vs Marquez
Lower court found Francisco Forneste & Samuel Jacobo guilty of the crime of robbery w/rape.
Renato Marquez died during trial. (was dropped as defendant, and the case as against him,
On Nov. 16, 1966 – accused pretended to be PC soldiers that were looking for contraband.
Francisca Marquez said that there was no contraband in their house. The men ordered her to
open up otherwise they‘ll shoot. She opened the window & Renato Marquez forced himself to
her. The door to the house was then opened & his companions were able to enter the house. The
accused demanded the money and other valuable items of the occupants of the house. Leticia
(daughter 13 year old) & Rufina (household help) was also raped. During the initial investigation
Rufina and Leticia did not name names of their aggressors but instead they described them.
Francisca pointed out secretly to the PC that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime.

Contention of the State:

The Identity of the Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste, and Samuel Jacobo as the
perpetrators of the crime was positively established by victims themselves, Francisca Marquez
and Leticia Tan.

Contention of the Accused:

Their defense consists of denials that they were the culprits who committed the crime.
They also contended that the witnesses stated on three occasions that they did not know the
person who committed the crime. First occasion, during investigation after the incident, when
witness was asked if she recognize the robbers, answer was negative. Second, Leticia Tan when
asked about identity of the robbers said that she did not know them. Third, when the witnesses
were brought ​to office of Chief police of catanauan to identify suspects, they were not
able to identify the robbers.

Ruling of Supreme Court:

FRANCISCO FORNESTE and SAMUEL JACOBO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery with rape pursuant to Article 294 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Circumstances stated by the accused do not affect the credibility of the complaining witnesses as
for the identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crimes. The silence of the
witnesses is because they had just suffered at the hands of the accused, fear that the accused
might take revenge if she divulge suspect’s identity. The aggravating circumstance was proven
by the prosecution.

People vs Empacis

Facts: At 9pm of Sept. 6, 1986, as victim Fidel Saromines and his wife Camilla 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 12k pesos but suddenly decide to fight to keep it. At struggle followed in the
course of which Langomez stabbed Fidel about 3x. Empacis joined in and with his own knife
also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside the house. It was only when Peter,
fidel’s 13-yr old son, saw his father fighting for his life and rushed to his father’s defense with a
long bolo striking Empacis and inflicting 2 wounds on him, did the 2 men flee. Fidel died from

fatal injuries, which penetrates his lungs and heart.

Contention of the Accused: Empacis denied the allegation. He denies having joined Romualdo
in attacking Fidel.

Resolution: Convicted of crime of robbery with homicide with aggravating circumstances.

The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud 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;

b) ​pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered

the house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;

c) ​pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry
into a house, 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;

f) ​posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for
drink of water.

In the case at bar, Saromines and Empacis pretended to be customer by buying sardines and rice,
and wishing to buy cigarettes. Therefore, aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud is present to
the commission of the crime.

i) Abuse of Superior Strength

People vs Rollon
In the evening of September 24, 1995, some residents of Sitio Sapang Palay, Barangay
Pili, San Fernando, Romblon, attended the wake of Palmeta Rollon. Among those paying their
last respects were Ariel Rollon, Edgar Perez, Alejandro Rogero and his older brother Melchor
Rogero. Ariel and Edgar were already tipsy having had a drinking spree . After a while, Ariel
and Edgar decided to go . On their way home they saw Kagawad Jose Rafol, who was then
fixing a rundown water pipe. For no apparent reason, Edgar boxed Jose. When the latter tried to
retaliate, Ariel, who was close behind, moved in to aid his friend. At that juncture, Kagawad
Thomas Rios who was on his way to the wake, intervened and pacified the protagonists. Joses
son, Dixon, arrived and punched Edgar who fell to the ground.
Ariel fled to call for reinforcements.Felipe and his sons Errol and Ariel, with Eddie Lachica,
Salvador Romano, Danilo Perez and Francisco Rabino, all boarded the tricycle and went after
Tito. As they reached the gate of Tito’s house, they chanced upon Alejandro and Melchor. Errol
blocked Alejandro and Melchor’s way. Ariel vented his ire on Alejandro and hacked the latter on
his left arm. Alejandro retaliated and boxed Ariel, who fell to the ground. Errol then joined the
fray, but was held at bay by Alejandro. Eddie suddenly shot Alejandro, who fell prostrate to the
ground. In the meantime, Melchor could not help his brother because Francisco had his gun
aimed at the latter. Errol then shot Alejandro two more times on the head and on his body. Ariel,
for his part, then hacked the hapless Alejandro with his bolo. Melchor somehow managed to
sneak out without being noticed and ran for dear life to the house of Thomas Rios. When
Melchor was already inside the house, he heard someone shout, (Kill him!).” Melchor heard
another gunshot. He peeped through a hole and saw the dead body of his brother, Alejandro,
being run over by the tricycle driven by Errol. Melchor could only watch in horror and grief.
Contention of the State:
The physical evidence shows that the victim sustained a total of no less than 20 wounds 5
gunshot wounds and 11 incised wounds on different parts of his body, a partially amputated
thumb and several abrasions. In contrast, the appellant did not suffer any major injuries, except
for the minor cut on his left arm which was inflicted by his late brother Ariel when the appellants
group ganged up on the victim to finish him off.
It is difficult to believe that Alejandro could, all by his lonesome, initiate the attack on the
appellant and his six cohorts who were each armed with bolos and handguns. Even if Alejandro
was, as claimed by the appellant, armed with a bolo, he was at the mercy of the appellant and his
six cohorts.
Contention of the Accused:
The appellant asserts that Eddie Lachica alone killed the victim and that he did not inflict
any injury on the victim at all. That he had no ill motive to kill Alejandro.
That under said circumstances, it was unnatural for Melchor not to lift a finger to save the
life of his sibling Alejandro. Melchors natural reaction should have been to help his brother or
seek the aid of the nearest neighbor to help stop the assault on his brother.
The appellant is guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified
by abuse of superior strength as alleged in the Information. To take advantage of superior
strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked. In the case at bar, there was a clear and gross disparity of
strength between the unarmed victim and the four armed assailants - three of whom were armed
with firearms. The victim gave no provocation and was in fact already backing off when he was

People vs Hugo
At 7:00 p.m. of 21 August 1997, Joel Talon fetched his cousin Remegio at the birthday
party of Lolito Villamar at Barangay Narra, San Manuel, Pangasinan. On their way home, they
were met by Ernesto Hugo, Lorenzo, and Rudy. Ernesto who was walking on the left side of the
road, came face to face with Remegio. Suddenly, Ernesto hacked Remegio twice with a bolo,
first on the forearm and then on the right shoulder, causing the latter to fall to the ground.
Remegio told Joel to run after Ernesto who is running away. Joel promptly gave a chase. Though
wounded, Remegio stood up to follow them.Lorenzo and Rudy also chased Remegio and Joel.
Joel decided to turn back since Ernesto is already far. Standing approximately ten meters he saw
Lorenzo hack Remegio with a bolo on the back of his head, causing him to fall to the
ground.Lorenzo deliver another blow at Remegio's neck. Afterwards, Rudy hacked Remegio at
the mouth and forehand. Lorenzo and Rudy forthwith fled. Joel shouted for help. Bobby
Antimano, Joey Villamar, Ben Gapisan, and Eniong Marcelo arrived carry Remegio's lifeless
body to the street pavement who lay prostrate on the ground.
Contention of the Accused
Appellants Ernesto and Rudy, impugn their conviction on the grounds that the trial court
erred in (a) giving credence to the testimony of Joel positively identifying Rudy as one of the
perpetrators of the crime; (b) finding that appellants conspired in killing Remegio; and (c)
finding that evident premeditation and treachery attended the killing of Remegio.
Contention of the State:
Considering the evident inequality of forces between the victim and his aggressors, the
trial court found that the killing of Remegio was attended by the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength.
Ernesto is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.
Joel was consistent in his sworn statements and testimony in court that the assault was
sudden, unexpected, and unprovoked. There was no exchange of words between the victim and
Ernesto at any time before the actual attack. Upon approaching and coming near Remegio, he
(Ernesto) immediately hacked the former. The several blows were delivered continuously until
Remegio fell to the ground. Remegio was simply overwhelmed by the swiftness of the attack,
thus ensuring the execution of the offense without risk to Ernesto. Clearly, the requisites of
treachery were present.
The trial disregarded the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident
premeditation is appreciated upon proof of (a) the time when the accused determined to commit
the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a
sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act. While it was proved that Ernesto planned to kill Remegio an hour
before the incident, the prosecution failed to show manifest acts that Ernesto took thereafter to
indicate that he clung to his plan to kill Remegio. Moreover, there was no sufficient time for him
to meditate on the consequences of his acts.
Neither can we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. The records are bereft of any information with respect to the physical condition of both
Ernesto and Remegio. For the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be
appreciated, the age, size, and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter a
superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. And
even assuming arguendo that it existed, abuse of superior strength should not be appreciated
separately, for it is absorbed in treachery.

People vs Roxas
Between nine oclock and nine-thirty on the evening of 8 March 1996, Joelyn was washing
clothes in front of the door of their house, lighted by a fluorescent lamp, when she saw Lorna
coming home from work in her type B uniform and carrying a brown bag. From a distance of
barely four to five meters, Joelyn could see Lorna running away from appellant. Appellant,
apparently drunk, had no clothes from waist up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun. When
Joelyn asked the pale and trembling Lorna why she was running, the latter replied, Lyn, Lyn,
enter, close the door, a man (is) following me! (Lyn, Lyn, pasok, sarado ang pinto, may
sumusunod sa akin lalaki). Joelyn promptly closed the door but appellant was able to kick it
open.Joelyn, her forehead hit by the door, was pushed aside. Appellant grabbed Lornas bag,
opened it and, apparently not finding what he could have been looking for, hurled the bag to the
floor (binalibag po niya ang bag sa sahig). Appellant asked Lorna, Why did you run? Why did
you not mind me? (Bakit ka tumakbo? Bakit di mo ko pinansin?). Lorna answered, I did not hear
you. Joelyn tried to hold the hand of appellant but he pushed her hand away. Appellant then shot
Lorna with a caliber .45 gun with its muzzle just two feet away from Lornas face.

Contention of the Accused:

Appellant, a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team of the Philippine
National Police, did not deny his presence in the vicinity of the crime scene but he presented a
different version of the incident. appellant noticed a suspicious-looking person who was high on
drugs. The bulge on the mans waist appeared to him to be a tucked gun. Appellant approached
the man, who was not from the place, to verify and to conduct a body search but just as he drew
near, the man ran away.Appellant chased the man and as he did so, he passed by two barangay
tanods, Inocencio Datu and Rudy Limbaga, who were asked by his wife to extend help by
meeting the man at the other side of the area (salubungin ninyo sa kabila). Appellant saw the
man enter a house by kicking open its door. Appellant fired his service .38 caliber gun. He
pushed the door, already half-open, but Lorna Puno sprayed tear gas on him, hitting both his eyes
and momentarily losing his sight. Appellant soon heard a gunshot from inside the
house. Appellant dove face down to seek cover. In the process, he lost control of his firearm. He
shouted for help and heard the voices of his wife and the two barangay tanods. The barangay
tanods brought him back to his house where he was informed that Lorna Puno had been shot. His
wife administered first aid to his eyes but, because his eyes were not healed, he was brought the
following morning by his wife to the Quezon City General Hospital.

Whether there is Abuse of superior strength.

In this instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape from appellant, an armed
hulk of a man, 57 in height, and around 33 years of age, when she was senselessly shot at
close range. Still in another case, this Court said: In several cases, we have held that an attack
made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act
afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. This is the exact
scenario in this case.

Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes a person who commits the
crime of murder, attended by the qualifying circumstance of, among other circumstances, taking
advantage of superior strength, with reclusion perpetua to death. No generic aggravating penalty
being attendant, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

People vs Gregorio
​On May 7, 1986, Carlos Catorse and Romoe Catorse arrived in the house of Adronico
Gregorio to attend the wake of his grandson at Sitio Bug-as, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Murcia, Negros
Occidental. Upon entry of the house, Adronico requested that Catorse surrender to them any
weapons they have. Catorse complied and handed over his samurai (katana).
At around 1:00 am, while playing poker, “Tunggak”, Adronico’s son, was reprimanded
by Ricardo Gregorio (Adronico’s brother) for peeking their cards. “Tunggak” answered angrily
and demanded the game to stop. Seeing how “Tunggak” was being assaulted by Adronico,
Carlos Catorse approached the latter and pacified them to avoid shaming “Tunggak” from the
crowd. However, Ricardo suddenly stabbed Carlos in the back with the samurai Carlos
surrendered, and proceeded to stab him further. Adronico also used a bolo to hack Carlos further
when he was on the ground.
Seeing the series of events, Romeo Catorse ran away from the scene and returned to the
Gregorio’s residence where they found Carlos’ body. Adronico and Ricardo fled to another Sitio,
but was pursued and apprehended by the authorities.

Contention of the Accused:

​The accused pleaded not guilty and interposed self-defense. He narrated a different story
where Carlos Catorse actually initiated the aggression.

Contention of the State:

​ dronico and Ricardo are guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the murer of Carlos

For their plea of self-defense, the accused failed to establish the prescribed requisites to
hold their defense which are: 1) unlawful aggression 2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to avoid or repeal it and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
making the defense. In the case at bar, we cannot hold that there was valid self-defense as the
injuries that Catorse sustained (he was stabbed sixteen times) were indicative of unreasonable
force and grave abuse of superior strength. Catorse and his co-victims were stabbed
treacherously and were unarmed at the time, meaning they had no other means to fend for
themselves when they were attacked. Thus, court held in favor of the ruling of the lower court
with modified penalties.

j) Band
• People vs Polares
People vs Buayaban
Pedro Tumulak and his co-accused Paulino Buayaban, Larry Betache, Marciano
Toacao,Yoyong Buayaban of the crime of "robbery in band with homicide. Upon arraignment on
January 17, 1991 accused Pedro Tumulak, Paulino Buayaban and Larry Betache pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. Their co-accused, Marciano Toacao and Yoyong Buayaban, remain
at large.
The five accused went into the house of Dioscoro Abonales, armed with guns. Marciano
Toacao, Yoyong Buayaban went into the room where Dioscoro was sleeping. Yoyong had kicked
Dioscoro then Marciano shot him. They then held Josefa, wife of Dioscoro, to show their money.
She was threatened to death if she will not show the money. After which, Josefa showed the
money. The accused also took the wallet of Rolando Verdida, their future son-in-law.
On their way of escape, they met Artemio, father of Dioscoro. Paulino had pulled a
trigger on him but it did not fire. So they continued in escaping.
Contention of the accused:
​The People erroneously charged the accused with "robbery in band with homicide."
There is no such crime in the Revised Penal Code.
The felony is properly called robbery with homicide. In the landmark case of People vs.
Apduhan, Jr. We ruled that if robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable
offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised
Penal Code, but the circumstance that it was committed by a band would be appreciated as an
ordinary aggravating circumstance. However, in the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary
aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the body of the information.
Though it is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
require that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information.
In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary aggravating circumstance
of band in the commission of the crime since there was no allegation in the information that
more than three armed malefactors acted together in the commission of the crime

*comment: Band should consist of 4 armed person organized with the intention of carrying
out an unlawful design. If ever the “contention of the accused” is wrong, maybe just tell Sir
calderon there was no band in here because there were only three of them who were

k) Treachery
People vs Escote
FACTS: On September 28, 1996, at past midnight, Rodolfo Cacatian, the driver of Five Star
passenger bus drove the bus from its terminal to its destination. At Camachile, Balintawak, six
passengers boarded the bus including accused Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote Jr.
Boarded also in the bus was SPO1 Jose C. Manio Jr. Juan and Victor suddenly stop up, whipped
out their guns and announce hold up. Juan and Victor fired their guns upward to awaken and
scare their passengers then they divested them of their money and valuables. Then they went to
the place of Manio Jr. and demanded to show them his ID. The accused took his ID and wallet
as well as his service gun, and told him: pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo ang
papatay sa iyo. The police pleaded for mercy, however, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the
police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body.
​SPO3 Romeo Meneses and PO3 Florante S. Ferrer while conducting police checkpoint
along the national highway when a white taxi cab without any plate number came to view.
Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver, who turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales
Escote. He finally confessed and admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor Arroyo,
staged the robbery on board Five Star Bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi.
Contention of the Accused (Victor): He testified that in 1996, he worked as a tire man in the
vulcanizing shop located in BangaI, Plaridel, Bulacan owned by Tony Boy Negro. On one
occasion, Ilarde Victorino, a customer of Tony Boy Negro, ordered Victor to sell a tire. Victor
sold the tire but did not turn over the proceeds of the sale to Ilarde. The latter hated Victor for his
misdeed. Victor returned to Barangay Muwal-Buwal, Laoang, Northern Samar and on
September 26, 1996, at 9:30 p.m., Victor was at the town fiesta in Laoang. Victor and his friends,
Joseph Iringco and Rickey Lorcio were having a drinking spree in the house of Barangay
Captain Ike Baluya. At 11:30 p.m., the three left the house of the barangay captain and attended
the public dance at the town auditorium. Victor and his friends left the auditorium at 5:30 a.m. of
September 27, 1996. Victor likewise testified that he never met Juan until his arrest and detention
at the Bulacan Provincial Jail. One of the inmates in said provincial jail was Ilarde
Victorino. Victor learned that Ilarde implicated him for the robbery of the Five Star Bus and the
killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr. to hit back at him for his failure to turn over to Ilarde the proceeds of
the sale of the latters.

ISSUES: WON treachery is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.

HELD: There is treachery when the following elements are present: At the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself. The accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means / methods or forms of attach employed by him.
When the victim was shot, he was defenseless, he was shot at a close range, thus, insuring
his death.
Treachery is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide
is killed by treachery. Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor
in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information.
People vs Caraig
Edmundo Diaz. He testified that at around 11:00 p.m. on 4 October 1988, he, together
with Roberto Raagas, Melencio Castro Jr., and Placido Agustin went to the Orchids Beerhouse in
Quezon City, in front of Ali Mall, Cubao. As they were leaving the beerhouse at past midnight or
in the early morning of 5 October 1988, Caraig confronted them (sinita) whether they were
military men. They did not answer. A rumble or fight suddenly ensued between his group and
Caraig.It was a brief scuffle. Caraig then ran back to the Orchids Beerhouse. Thereafter,
Edmundo and his companions rode on a Rocalex taxi. They were chased, however, by an old
1976 model white Galant car, which eventually blocked the taxi along 12 Avenue and P. Tuazon
St., Quezon City, about 100 meters from the Orchids Beerhouse. Caraig, Laxamana, and Laomoc
alighted from the Galant car. Each of them held a .45 caliber gun, which they simultaneously
fired upon Edmundo and his companions. While the hail of bullets went on, Edmundo played
dead. He then heard somebody utter: Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan. When the
car left, he asked the people who gathered around the scene to bring him to a hospital, where he
underwent treatment for eighteen days
Contention of the State: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of murder and (2)
frustrated murder in for the mortal wounding of Edmundo Diaz.
Contention of the Accused: There was no treachery in the commission of the crime
There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution
of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two
elements must therefore concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted.
The attack upon the victims in these cases was attended by treachery. Per Danilo Javiers
testimony, the taxi on which the victims were riding was moving slowly away from the
beerhouse when Caraig and his co-assailants pursued it and then blocked its path. The
interception took place at less than 100 meters away from the beerhouse. Since the victims were
inside the taxi, they had no chance to fight back or defend themselves. The number of the
victims’ individual wounds and their relative positions when found dead by the police
emphasized further the essence of treachery. The means, method, and form of the attack in this
case were, therefore, consciously adopted and effectively forestalled the victims from employing
a defense against their attackers.
Accordingly, as correctly found by the trial court, Caraig should be held liable for three counts of
murder and one count of frustrated murder.