PEOPLE VS.

PETENIA 
GR. NO L- 51256 
12-Aug-86 
PARAS, J.: 
 
FACTS: 
 
Edito Petenia, Carlo Castaneda and Romeo Lugon were employees of the victim, Mrs. Bonifacia 
Eustaquio Guanlao, in her factory located at No. 52, 12th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. On April 
30, 1978 Petenia, Castañeda and Lugon planned among themselves to kill and rob of her 
valuables their employer Mrs. Guanlao. 
 
On the morning of May 1, 2019, while Mrs. Guanlao was inside her bag factory, Petenia 
approached the victim and covered the victim's mouth with his hand. As she struggled, she was 
hit with an adobe stone from behind by Lugon, then Petenia delivered fistic blows on her as she 
staggered from the blow. While the victim was lying mortally wounded on the ground, Lugon 
and Petenia both hit the victim's head which caused her death. Simultaneously, Castaneda 
entered the victim's house and entered the victim's bedroom and took her valuables. They then 
drove the Ford Fiera of the victim as their get-away vehicle with Castaneda on the wheels, 
abandoning it later at Tejeron Street, Makati Metro Manila. From there, the three proceeded to 
Pasay City where they boarded a JB Bus bound for Sorsogon, then, they went later to Samar, 
then to Tacloban Leyte and to Barrio Tawagan, Oras, Eastern Samar where they divided the 
loot composing of cash and valuable amounting to Php 75,000.00. Later they went their 
separate ways and hide. 
 
The lower court did give consideration regarding Castaneda's claim that he was threatened 
with a knife, Castaneda could have easily escaped from his companions when he was already 
at the house of the victim as he was by then no longer within their view. In fact this was the 
first of a series of opportunities for him to run away from them and to report the crime to the 
authorities. The lower court did not give merit to the defense the apprehended persons were 
then charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to death.  
   
  Hence, this automatic review. 
 
Issues: 
  Whether or not the court has erred in not acquitting the defendants-appellants despite 
the presence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. 
 
Ruling: 
 
No. The appellants contest that they committed the crime "under the impulse of an 
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury." This defense does not deserve serious 
consideration. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the following 
requisites must concur: (a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and 
imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. The 
Court did not find a reason to disturb the finding of conviction .the contention of the defense 
thus the judgment of the trial court is modified by the imposition of the penalty of reclusion 
perpetua in lieu of death but AFFIRMED in all other respects.