[G.R. No. 128114. October 25, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER CANDO Y PAGDANGANAN, ARNEL

VARGAS Y MAGTANGOB, AND WILBERTO RAPCING Y BROÑOLA, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

In the afternoon of May 13, 1995, Vargas, Rapcing and one Nonoy Sayson were having a drinking session at a canteen in
front of the factory. Later, Cando joined the group. Upon the prompting of Vargas, Cando went to the factory to get his
salary. Cando came back angry because he was unable to get his salary from the secretary, nor was he able to get a loan of
P100.00 from the caretaker. Apparently, Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the caretaker, so this time, he
threatened to kill the caretaker. The group continued their drinking session.

Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with two knives proceeded to the victim’s room, which was lighted by a fluorescent
lamp. Cando picked a piece of lead pipe and told Vargas to pull open the door where the victim’s mosquito net was attached.
When Vargas pulled open the door, the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on the head with the lead pipe.
The victim awakened and Cando demanded money from him. When the victim replied that he had no money, Cando struck
him again with the lead pipe. Blood oozed from the victim’s head. Cando asked the victim if he recognized him. Cando
repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became unconscious. Cando placed the victim’s radio cassette in his bag. He
went upstairs to get more items and the keys of the Cimarron van. Thereafter, the trio went downstairs to where the van was
parked. Vargas, the only one who knew how to drive, sat on the driver’s seat. Cando and Rapcing opened the gate, then
pushed the van outside. Once they were out of hearing range, Vargas gunned the motor and the two clambered into the van.
Cando sat on the passenger side while Rapcing sat at the back. Cando prevailed upon the group to proceed to Quiapo to
visit his girlfriend, but they could not locate her so they just drove around until daybreak. When they reached Hemady Street
in Quezon City, they abandoned the van. The trio boarded a jeep going to Taft Avenue and went their separate ways. 2 It
was then already early morning of May 14, 1995.

The Trial court rendered its decision convicting the three (3) appellants of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. Appellants were acquitted of the charge of carnapping.

Issue:

whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense?

Held:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. The presence of treachery, though, should not result in qualifying the offense
to murder, for the correct rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, such treachery
is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its
own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code.

For evident premeditation to exist, the prosecution must prove with clear and convincing evidence the following elements:
(1) the time when the offenders decided to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon
the consequences of their act and allow their conscience to overcome the resolution of their will. 38 Evident premeditation
is inherent in crimes against property, but it may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill
besides stealing. The prosecution clearly proved the intention to rob and to disable the victim, but not the intention to kill
him. As Vargas testified, the victim was still alive when they left him rolling on the floor. Thus, evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived
plan. 41
The alternative circumstance of intoxication, however, should be considered as mitigating, it having been sufficiently shown
that (1) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, they have taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur their
reason and deprive them of certain degree of control, and (b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan
to commit the felony.

decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED, ROGER CANDO Y PAGDANGANAN, ARNEL VARGAS Y
MAGTANGOB, and WILBERTO RAPCING Y BROÑOLA are hereby found guilty of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide.
 People vs Estanislao
G.R. No. 118079 / 265 SCRA 810 December 24, 1996

Facts:
The relationship between the Estanislaos and the Montejos had turned sour since 18 November

1989 when the victim had advised the Estanislaos to vacate the property of the Montejos that they were occupying
since the Montejos were going to use the property. On 11 January 1990, only a week before the stabbing incident,
the victim and Armando Estanislao had a fist fight where the latter was aided by the two (2) other accused, Felino
and Rogelio Estanislao but the fight was broken up by the timely arrival of police officers which prevented the
accused from further attacking the victim Sergio Montejo. On 19 January 1990 at around five o'clock in the afternoon
inside the eatery owned by a certain Jun Badilla, while the victim Sergio Montejo, Badilla and another unnamed
person were drinking beer,the accused Rogelio Estanislao arrived. When the victim Montejo stood up from the
drinking session to relieve himself, accused Rogelio Estanislao suddenly uttered, "Tara Sergio!" after which Rogelio
suddenly stabbed the victim Sergio Montejo and thereafter fled.

Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.

Ruling:
Yes. In order for Treachery to be appreciated the act must spark an attack that is deliberate,

sudden and unexpected. The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery has been adequately shown. The
attack on Montejo although preceded by a warning ("Tara Sergio!) was undoubtedly sudden and unexpected and
prevented the unsuspecting victim, who had just stood up, from defending himself.
 US V. Abaigar
2 Phil 417

It should be borne in mind, that the armed men should not participate in the execution of the felony. Otherwise, they
become co-principals. Casual presence is not aggravating if the offender did not avail himself of any of their aid nor did
he knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime. (US v. Abaigar, 2 Phil. 417) If used as a means
to insure its execution in the killing of a person, such is absorbed in treachery.
 G.R. No. L-36941 June 29, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL SAYLAN alias PAEL, accused-appellant
FACTS:
Rafael Saylan was accused of rape in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno but entered a plea of “not guilty” after the trial
court rendered judgment.
One afternoon, Eutropia (the victim) went to a public market in Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs for her family and to fetch
her 5-year old daughter. On their way home they boarded a jeepney along with other passengers including the accused. The
jeepney arrived at the Malinas citrus farm, the end destination and every passenger alighted and had to walk all the way to
barrio Malinao. The passengers separate into 2 groups and the accused joined the victim’s group and walked up until they
reach a trail for carabaos. The accused, while walking side-by-side with the victim suddenly pulled out a dagger pointing to
the victim threatening her. At this point, the accused grabbed the victim while still pointing the dagger and dragged her to
a creek near a coconut tree. The accused then ordered the victim to remove her panty but at first the victim resisted, but
accused threatened to kill her, so she removed her panty after which the accused ordered her to lie down. Subsequently,
accused placed himself on top of the victim and succeeded on doing the sexual intercourse. After the first intercourse,
accused ordered the victim to stand up and did the intercourse again. Unsatisfied with the second, the victim ordered the
accused to stand up and then he bent her body downwards with her hands and knees resting on the ground. At this point,
accused put himself behind the victim and executed the sexual intercourse the way dogs do. The intercourse went further
up to a fifth instance. The accused only let go of the victim when the victim promised to accused not to tell her husband
what he did to her.

ISSUE:
1. WON the accused’s offense of rape was attended by aggravating circumstances of: abuse of superior strength,
nighttime, uninhabited place, ignominy and reiteracion.

HELD:
The trial court disregarded superiority because it "is inherent in the crime of rape or is absorbed in the element of force." It
also did not consider nocturnity "there being no evidence that the accused purposely sought it to facilitate the commission
of the rape.
Despoblado was present according to the trial court because: "The accused dragged the offended party, at the point of a
dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50 meters below to better attain his purpose without
interference, and to better secure himself from detection and punishment . Even the junction where the two children were
left is already 400 meters from the nearest house. While there maybe occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being
an uninhabited place. We hold that the trial court for the reasons stated correctly held that the crime was committed in an
uninhabited place.
The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior
female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy
because "The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often
been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners
but not otherwise.
The trial court also held that "there is no reiteracion because one of the offenses, namely Robbery in Band, for which the
accused has been penal was committed after the commission of this rape case, and the penalty imposed on the other offense
of Frustrated Homicide, is lighter than the penalty for rape.
COURT RULING:
The judgment under review is modified in the sense that the appellant shall suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua instead
of death and the indemnity to be paid to the offended party is increased to P20,000.00. Costs against the appellant.
 People vs. Ilaoa

Topic Aggravating Circumstances -> Manner of Commission -> Evident Premeditation /

Cruelty
Case No. 233 SCRA 231 / G.R. No. 94308 / June 16, 1994
Case Name People vs. Ilaoa
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J.
DOCTRINE
● Number of wounds 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 victim’s dead body was
dismembered.
● To warrant a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur:
(a) there must be more than one circumstance;
(b) the circumstances from which the inferences are derived are proven; and,
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

SUMMARY
The deceased Nestor de Loyola was found decapitated with 43 stab wounds on the chest, burns all over the body,
and the head 2 feet away. Brothers Ruben and Rogelio was charged by the Regional Trial Court with murder with
the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty, and imposed upon
them the penalty of “life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed that Ruben Ilaoa was guilty, but acquitted his
brother Rogelio Ilaoa for insufficiency of evidence. The SC also charged them not with murder but only homicide,
based on the evidence.

RELEVANT FACTS

● The deceased Nestor de Loyola was seen at 11pm of 4 November 1987, in a drinking session with his
compadre Ruben Ilaoa together with Julius Eliginio, Edwin Tapang and a certain “Nang Kwang” outside
Ruben’s apartment.

● The drunken voices of Ruben and Nestor engaged in an apparent argument were later on heard. Nestor was
then seen being kicked and mauled by Ruben and his brother Rodel, Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang.
Nestor was crying all the while, “Pare, aray, aray!” Afterwards, Nestor, who appeared drunk, was seen
being “dragged” into Ruben Ilaoa’s apartment. Nestor was heard saying, “Pare, bakit ninyo ako ginaganito,
hirap na hirap na ako!”

● Ruben Ilaoa and Julius Eliginio borrowed Alex Villamil’s tricycle at about two o’clock the following
morning allegedly for the purpose of bringing to the hospital a neighbor who was about to give birth. Ruben
was seen driving the tricycle alone, with a sack which looked as though it contained a human body, placed
in the sidecar. The tricycle was returned an hour later to Alex who noticed bloodstains on the floor. The
latter thought that they were those of the pregnant woman.

● Blood was found on Ruben’s shirt when he was asked to lift it during the investigation by the police.

● Moreover, Ruben’s hair near his right forehead was found partly burned and his shoes were splattered
with blood. Susan Ocampo, Ruben’s livein partner, was likewise seen in the early morning of 5
November 1987 sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance of their apartment.

● Pfc. Reynaldo P. Angeles was dispatched in the early morning of 5 November 1987 to Tinio St., Sta. Maria
Phase I, Balibago, Angeles City, where the decapitated body of a man, later identified through his voter’s
 identification card as Nestor de Loyola, was found in a grassy portion thereof. Apart from the decapitation,
the deceased bore forty-three (43) stab wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the body. The
head was found some two (2) feet away from the corpse.

● June 15, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City found Ruben and Rogelio guilty of murder with
the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty, and imposed
upon them the penalty of “life imprisonment.”
 ISSUE

● W/N Ruben and Rogelio Ilaoa are guilty?

● W/N they should be charged with murder with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation,
abuse of superior strength and cruelty?

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N Ruben and Rogelio are YES, only for Ruben. Rogelio Ilaoa is acquitted.
guilty?
1. The RTC relied solely on the testimony that Rogelio helped his brother
Ruben drag the victim inside Ruben’s apartment where the victim was last
seen alive. Apart from such testimony, there is nothing else to link Rogelio to
the killing. Such circumstance cannot be the basis of Rogelio’s conviction.

W/N they should be charged
with murder with the
attendant circumstances of
evident premeditation, abuse
of superior strength and
cruelty?
No. The Supreme Court charged Ruben with homicide and said that the
attendant circumstances, namely, abuse of superior strength, cruelty and
evident premeditation, were not sufficiently proved to be appreciated
against appellant.
1. Abuse of Superior Strength: there was no evidence whatsoever that
appellant was physically superior to the victim and that the former took
advantage of such superior physical strength to overcome the latter’s
resistance to consummate the offense.

2. Cruelty: The fact that the victim’s 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 appellant
Ruben Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer
slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral
pain. Number of wounds 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 victim’s dead body was dismembered.

3. Evident Premeditation: There is nothing in the records to show that

appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill the victim, nor is
there proof to show that such killing was the result of meditation,
calculation or resolution on his part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to
show that the series of circumstances which culminated in the killing
constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no interval of time separating
them for calculation and meditation.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the judgment finding accused RUBEN E. ILAOA guilty beyond reasonable doubt is
AFFIRMED but only for homicide, instead of murder. Consequently, he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of eight (8) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to sixteen
(16) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. In addition, accused-
appellant RUBEN E. ILAOA is ordered to pay the heirs of Nestor de Loyola P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and, as
fixed by the court a quo, P46,765.00 as actual damages, P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, and P10,000.00 for moral damages.
Accused-appellant ROGELIO E. ILAOA, however, is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for obvious
insufficiency of evidence.
 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 Renato’s 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, Renato’s 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.