People v.

Amazan
G.R. No. 136251, January 16, 2001

Facts:
Artemio Arma was killed and his wife Amparo and son Antonio, were heavily injured on the
evening April 27, 1997. The assailant were Jerito Amazan, Jaime Amazan and Danilo Villegas.
In the information charged the aggravating circumstances of conspiracy, treachery, evident
premeditation, superiority in strength and taking advantage of nighttime environment was
alleged.
The defense gave a different version of the events. Jerito claimed that Artemio, Alberto and
Antonio were armed with bolos and pieces of wood attacked Jaime while he is defecating in their
land. In the turn of events, Jerito, while defending his brother, Artemio was killed and both
Amparo and Antonio were injured when they also tried to attack them. Alberto was able to escape.
Jerito helped his wounded brother and asked for Danilo's help who claimed he was sleeping when
everything transpired. Their allegation was supported by a medical certificate issued by a certain
Dr. Alino. Jerito voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities immediately after he brought
Jaime to the hospital and Jaime voluntarily surrendered after 4 days.
The lower court ruled against the assailants giving more weight and credence to the prosecution's
testimony.
The decision was appealed questioning the court's decision to; (1) give more credence to the
testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses over the defense's testimony; (2) error in finding the
qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and conspiracy between the assailants .

Issue:
Whether or not the appellants' assertions are correct.

Held:
1. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of
the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. In the case of Alberto, it can
be explained by his age, inexperience, and nervousness due to an unfamiliar atmosphere
in court proceeding. Thus an ample space for inaccuracy can be accorded.

2. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against 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. In this case, Artemio had no warning of the impending
attack. Although the assailant maintains that the attack is frontal, the report of certain Dr.
Tamayo proved otherwise. As there are wounds inflicted at the back side of the skull.

3. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In determining the existence of
conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the
victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such
closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the
 death of the victim. In this case, all of accused-appellants came together at the place where
Artemio was tethering his carabao; the three were present at the time of the attack on
Artemio; they were all armed; none of them made any effort to stop the attack on the
deceased; and all three of them fled together after attaining their purpose.

In all three cases, the lower court correctly ruled that there was no aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation.
With respect to the allegation of abuse of superior strength, it is deemed absorbed in treachery
for murder and it qualifies the crime committed against Amaparo from frustrated homicide to
frustrated murder. It was held that when a man attacks an unarmed and defenseless woman, it
constitutes taking advantage of superior strength, a qualifying circumstance for murder.
On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated since there
is no evidence to show that nighttime was deliberately sought by the assailants to facilitate the
commission of the crime or prevent its discovery or evade capture or facilitate their escape.

**Modified and final decision is as follows:

1) In Criminal Case No. 8494, accused Jerito Amazan and Jaime Amazan are found guilty of murder
and, taking into account the absence of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua for
the killing of Artemio Arma;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 8496, accused-appellant Jaime Amazan is found guilty of attempted
murder and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional minimum and the maximum of which is eight
(8) years of prision mayor minimum.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 8497, accused-appellant Danilo Villegas is found guilty of attempted
homicide and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is four (4)
months of arresto mayor medium and the maximum of which is four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional medium.
(4) Accused-appellants Jerito Amazan, Jaime Amazan and Danilo Villegas are ordered to pay the
heirs of the victim Artemio Arma the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral ddamage

**modification in red
Bernardo vs People
GR. No. 182210 Oct 5, 2015

Facts:
On June 1991, Bernardo obtained a loan evidence by a promissory note from the private
complainant Carmencita C. Bumanglag (Bumanglag) in the amount of P460,000.00 in solidum
with her husband payable on or before its maturity on November 30, 1991 with 12% interest per
annum payable upon default.
As additional security, Bernardo gave Bumanglag the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (T-1034) 151841. Before the maturity of the loan, the security was
withdrawn but in exchange 5 Far East Bank Co. checks were issued to cover the loan.
On September 2016, the checks were dishonored because the account were it is drawn is already
closed. Consequently a notice of dishonor was sent to Bernardo. The demand went unheeded,
hence the current case.
Bernardo interposed the following defense – (1) the check was presented beyond the 90-days
period (2) the checks were never meant to be presented as they were issued only as security and
the promissory note was meant to be paid in cash.
RTC found Bernardo guilty of five 950 counts of B.P. 22 violation and sentenced her to one 910
year imprisonment while retaining the civil liability of 460K (the amount of loan) plus 12% legal
interest. CA affirmed the decision but deleted the penalty of imprisonment in lieu of an add’l fine
of 460K.
Bernardo died on March 14, 2011. She was survived by her husband (Mapalad) and their 4
children)

Issue: Whether or not the civil liability arising from the violation of B.P 22 extinguish upon the
death of the accused?

Held:
Yes. As a general rule, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes her criminal liability
and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense (delict). The independent civil
liabilities, however, survive death and an action for recovery therefore may be generally pursued
but only by filing a separate civil action.
In B.P. 22 cases, the criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil actions.
Instead of instituting two separate cases, only a single suit is filed and tried. This rule was enacted
to help declog court dockets, which had been packed with B.P. 22 because creditors used the
courts as collectors.
In these case, Bernardo failed to adduce sufficient evidence of payment; thus she is civilly liable.
The heirs thereby ordered to pay the amount of P460k + 1% interest from the time of the
institution of criminal action, and 6% additional interest on top of the amount from the date of
the decision.
People vs Simon
GR. No. 93028 July 29, 1994

Facts:
On or about 22 October 1988, NARCOM operatives, acting on an information from a confidential
asset, formed a buy-bust team against Martin Simon. During the operation, Simon sold four tea
bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer in consideration of P40,000.
The appellant was rightfully apprised of his right during the arrest for violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425)
The version of the appellant as expected is different. He alleged, that on the same day he was at
home with his family when the Policemen suddenly arrived. He was told that they were going to
Camp Olivas for some inquiry. And while on board, he was physically forced and tortured to sign
certain documents and to admit that he is a drug pusher and insisted that the marijuana leaves
actually came from one of the policemen.
Appellant's brother, Norberto Simon, testified to the fact that appellant was hospitalized after
undergoing abdominal pain and vomiting of blood. But a certain Dr. Aguas, declared that it was
due to peptic ulcer.
The trial court decided against the appellant, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos

Issue/s: Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
Held:
No. The penalty was modified into an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor,
as the minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional, as the maximum thereof.
The Court in order to harmonize conflicting provision of RA 6425 to give effect to the law as a
whole. The penalty was changed to prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts should
be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.
In view of this and from the specific mandate of the special law that the quantities of the drugs be
divided into three and the resulting quotient will be the bases for allocating the penalty
proportionately. Thus, if the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed
shall be prision correccional; from 250 to 499 grams, prision mayor; and 500 to 749 grams,
reclusion temporal.
ISLaw is apparently applicable in this case, since drug offenses are not included in nor has
appellant committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and the
penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death,.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of compassion, and should be
liberally interpreted in favor of the accused. For, with fealty to the law, the court may set the
minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision
correccional. The difference, which could thereby even involve only one day, is hardly worth the
creation of an overrated tempest in the judicial teapot.
People vs Gutual
GR. No. 115233 Feb. 22, 1990

Facts:
On 29 December 1990, Celestino Maglinte was shot dead by Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nadera .
The assailants are member of CAFGU in San Vicente, Davao.
The prosecution and the defense as expected had conflicting versions of the story.
According to the prosecution, the victim was only looking for the Brgy. Capation to report a small
explosion (firecracker) when suddenly the accused shot Maglinte even though the victim already
dropped to his knees and raised his arms as a sign of submission..
The version of the defense claims that the accused only defended themselves and the Brgy,
Captain from Maglinte who is chasing the latter with a bolo. The accused managed to turn the
victoms attention towards them. Maglinte was eventually shot when he continued pressing
forward unceasingly hacking away at Gutual, despite the warning shots (5).
(The people of San Vicente staged a held a rally in front of the Police station demanding the release
of the two accused. The rallyists brought with them a "manifesto” stating that Maglinte is a indeed
a dangerous person, signed by the Brgy. Chairman and his council)
The trial court finds Gatual guilty while Nadero was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
But both of them were ordered to indemnify the widow and heirs of the victim in solidum.
Issue:
Whether or not Gutual has sufficiently prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense or
defense of stranger.

Held:
It was clearly established duering the testimony of the witnesses that the unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim against the barangay captain had ceased when he turns his attention to the
accused-appellants. Thus the justifying circumstance of self defense is the only remaining option
for the appellant to ague.
The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. Requisites 1 and 2 were sufficiently established since he was running amuck,
he did not care anymore whom to attack or whether the person to be attacked was unarmed or
armed with a high-powered rifle.
In determining Whether the means employed by the accused-appellant were reasonable, the
court observed that a bolo-wielder did not stand a chance against a CAFGU member "trained in
the art of self-defense. But the danger to the accused-appellant's life was clearly imminent. It
would not then be proper nor reasonable to claim that he should have fled or selected a less
deadly weapon, because in the emergency in which, without any reason whatever, he was placed,
there was nothing more natural than to use the weapon he had to defend himself. In the natural
order of things, following the instinct of self-preservation, he was compelled to resort to a proper
defense
People vs Salvatie
GR. No. 111124 June 20, 1996

Facts:
On 15 may 1988, the assailants – Constantine, Agos Trinidad, Willie Trinidad, Alvin Santos and
Juan Salvatierra, were charged with the offense of robbing the house of Kubuta and Elizabeth
Hammond whith also resulted in the killing of Hichiro Kobuta, the raping and killing of Hazel
Arjona (Maid) and the frustrated killing of Marilyn Juguilon.
Willie Trinidad and Alvin Santos eluded arrest, Constantino and Salvatierra were convicted and
Agustin was acquitted.
Constatino, who was the former driver of the victims, was the only indictee to appeal for review.
According to his version of the story, he claimed that he was forced by the group (especially
Salvatierra) into going with them. Fearing for his life, Constantino agreed umder duress.
To substantiate his claim, he assailed the credibility of Elizabeth by narrating an absurd story
about how Elizabeth Hammond believes that he has nothing to do with the robbery.
The story is contrary to the positive assertions of the victims (particularly Elizabeth and Diosa
Hammond) that he really have an active role in the crime.

Issue: Whether or not