You are on page 1of 5

Felipe, Sinonor & Sonny Pepito, petitioners vs. Hon.

CA & People of the Issues & Ratio:
Philippines, respondents [July 8, 1999] 1. WON guilt of Felipe & Sonny was proven beyond reasonable doubt and if
yes, WON conspiracy was established. - NO
Facts (respondents): • Amada Bantillo, witness for petitioners, claim that she her house was only more
• July 15, 1989, 8:30 am: Cynthia Sapa, wife of victim Noe Sapa, was in her than an armslength away from Noe’s house and their houses were derived by a
mom’s house in Burabud, Laoang, Northern Samar where she & her H were bamboo fence. She testified that she was doing the laundry at the time the
staying. incident occurred. She claims that she saw all 4 Pepitos pass by one minute
• Someone on the street called on her H but Noe was still asleep since he went to after the other. She saw that they all had weapons. Then she heard a
bed late as he is part of loc Bantay Bayan who makes rounds at night. commotion as if a kitchen was being butchered so she stopped work & ran
• Cynthia saw 3 petitioners/accused + Estrella Pepito. Felipe & Estrella are sps & towards main highway. She saw Sinonor w/stains of blood in front of him. He
Sinonor & Sonny are their kids. She saw that they were armed w/various came out fr house of Cynthia. Bantilo testi corroborated by Genaro Tepace,
weapons such as depang, Indian pana, sagangat. She was frightened so she Cynthia & Urdanita.
ran to neighbor’s house where she sought refuge. • Venancio Laguitan, witness for respondents, claim that only Sinonor & Noe
• She met her mom-in-law, Urdanita Sapa. She told her about the incident. grappled w/o other people joining them. He further stated that Sinonor alone
Urdanita went back to her house & told accused to leave Noe for he didn’t do successively stabbed Noe & pursued him up to time when Noe staggered
anything wrong to them. towards his house. He also claims that he only saw Sinonor come out of Noe’s
• The accused went inside house while Estrella stood by the door. After w/c a house w/o Felipe, Sonny or Estrella. Corroborated by Rodolfo Tepace & Felipe,
commotion was heard. Then the 3 went out of the house w/their weapons Sinonor, Sonny & Estrella Pepito.
bloodied. Sinonor announced that Noe was dead. • Court convinced w/respondents’ evidence:
• Noe was found dead in a pool of blood on kitchen floor. He sustained 19 stab, 1. Pablo Pulga who photographed victim’s body & was presented as witness
incise & hack wounds. testified that bolo was in Noe’s rt hand belying claim that Noe was asleep
Facts (petitioners): when he was attacked & supporting Pepito’s claim that Noe died while
• July 15, 1989, bet 6 & 7 a.m.: Noe was drunk & armed w/bolo & Indian pana. fighting w/Sinonor.
He made trouble in the neighborhood w/c prompted Estrella to report matter to 2. Noe was found in kitchen & not in living room. Negates claim that he was
brgy capt. Espino who then brought Noe home. asleep & bolsters allegation that Sinonor finished him off as he retreated to
• After half an hour: Noe challenged family of accused to a fight. He chased his house.
Felipe who ran towards their house & so Noe didn’t pursue him anymore. He 3. Dr. Ver who examined victim couldn’t make a categorical statement re
went home. certainty of 19 wounds being inflicted by different weapons. She also
• Sinonor thought dad was hurt so he grabbed a bolo, rushed out of house & ran claims it’s possible.
4. There are only suspicions, surmises, & guesses on guilt of Felipe & Sonny.
after Noe. Noe hit Sinonor w/pana & struck him w/bolo on rt arm. Sinonor was
They can’t be found guilty simply because of these. Guilt must flow
able to grab rt arm of victim w/c held bolo & stabbed him several times. Noe
naturally from facts proved & must be consistent w/all of them.
tried to flee but Sinnonor pursued him til they reached Noe’s house. Noe
2. Mitigating/aggravating circumstances.
staggered inside the house, fell on kitchen floor & died. Sinonor was met by his
• MC incomplete defense of relative can’t be appreciated in favor of Sinonor. Even
family as he came out w/bloodied bolo, clothes & hands.
if based on mistaken belief, such can be appreciated only if act done would
 RTC gave credence to respondent’s evidence. All 3 accused were found guilty have been lawful had facts been as accused believed them to be. No more rt to
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. Appreciated testimonies of witnesses, attack when unlawful aggression has ceased. In this case, even if Noe killed
police officer as well as municipal court resolution re incident, autopsy report. Felipe, Sinonor can’t still claim this MC because Noe already stopped about 8
Found defenses of Felipe & Sonny that they didn’t participate as incredible, meters fr door of Pepito’s residence & turned back to go home. Aggression
preposterous & not convincing. Sinonor’s plea of self-defense not appreciated already ceased to exist.
since he became offender & not defender and means employed was not • MC of sufficient provocation/threat on part of offended party immediately
reasonable to prevent/repel aggression since 19 wounds were sustained. Plea preceding act is appreciated. Provocation: unjust/improper conduct or act of
of voluntary surrender not appreciated since such was not proven in court. offended party capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. Sufficient:
Estrella acquitted. adequate to excite person to commit a wrong w/c must be proportionate in
 CA: affirmed RTC. Number of wounds would show that not only one person gravity. Immediately precede act: no interval of time bet provocation by
committed crime. Witnesses testified that they saw all 4 Pepitos go to the offended party & commission of crime by provoked. Provocation on Noe’s part:
house of Noe. Gave much weight to testimony of Amanda Bantilo. Bolstered by challenging Pepitos armed w/bolo & pana and chasing Felipe. Witnesses
fact that prior to incident Noe has challenged Pepitos to a fight. Although testified that Sinonor attacked Noe shortly after provocation.
Sinonor’s desire to exculpate dad is understandable, it can’t be considered • AC of dwelling not appreciated since Noe gave provocation.
where common design & concerted action is evident. MC of sufficient • MC of passion or obfuscation disregarded since sufficient provocation/threat MC
provocation on part of Noe is considered. was already appreciated. Should be treated as one if based on same facts.
Held: CA decision as to Felipe & Sonny reversed. They are acquitted. Affirmed WRT appreciated. This aggravating circumstance can be considered only in crimes
Sinonor. There being one MC & no AC, penalty should be imposed in its min period against persons and honor. The special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide
thus, he is sentenced to prision mayor min to reclusion temporal max & ordered to is a crime against property not against persons. Moreover, nothing appears in
pay indemnity & moral damages to heirs of Noe. the record that appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or sex
of the offended party. Moreover, such an aggravating circumstance would be
PEOPLE v. PARAISO absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
319 SCRA 422 (1999) Judgment: Penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is composed of 2 indivisible
penalties. Applying Art. 63, RPC, penalty that should be imposed is death which is the
Facts: Roland Paraiso was found guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with maximum provided for by law in the absence of any mitigating circumstance to offset
Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. Confederating with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of superior strength. These
John Doe he entered the house of Lolita Alipio Tigley, and stole several items and on aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in the information since they are mere
the occasion thereof, with intent to kill, dragged Tigley inside a room, and thereafter generic aggravating circumstances which have the effect of increasing the penalty to
assaulted, attacked and stabbed the latter on the different parts of the body which the maximum period which is death. But in accordance with Sec. 25 of R.A. 7659,
caused her death shortly thereafter. amending Art. 83 of the RPC, upon finality of this decision, certified true copies
Issues: thereof, as well as the records of this case, are forthwith forwarded to the Office of the
1. WON Paraiso was guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
homicide.
Yes. The essential elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with People vs. Rodil [November 20, 1981]
Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) are: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of Automatic Review of the judgement of the Circuit Criminal Court
violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to
another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; Facts:
and, (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of  Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court
homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. The evidence for the death of Lt.Masana.
for the prosecution showed that appellant and his companion, with a gun and a
knife, took possession of personal properties belonging to the victim, with intent Version of the prosecutor
to gain, and on the occasion thereof, the victim was killed.  April 24, 1971 around 1:00 pm – Masana together with Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica
was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang Market. While they
2. WON aggravating circumstances were rightly appreciated were eating, their attention was called by Rodil who was outside blowing his
No. Dwelling and abuse of superior strength may be appreciated but not whistle. Masana, in civilian clothing, accompanied by Fidel went outside and
disregard of respect due the offended party on account of her sex. asked Rodil, after identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the gun that was
Dwelling. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the tucked under his shirt had a license
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the  Instead if answering Rodil attempted to draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the
victim was killed inside his house. Here, robbery was committed in the house of gave and gave it to Masana.
the victim without provocation on her part. In robbery with violence and  The three went inside the restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for the gun
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of and he asked Rodil to sign it but the appellant refused to do so. Masana
robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand up Rodil
sanctity of the offended party's house. Dwelling is considered aggravating pulled out his dagger and stabbed Masana several times on the chest and
primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He stomach causing his death after several hours.
who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he  The companions of Masana took the accused into custody.
who offends him elsewhere.
Abuse of superior strength. While abuse of superior strength may be Version of the defense
considered when there is an inequality of comparative force between the victim  Rodil is claiming self-defense
and the aggressor, there must, nonetheless, be a situation of strength  Rodil together with his wife were eating inside the restaurant and while they
notoriously selected and made use of by the latter in the commission of the were waiting for their food Masana approached and inquired whether he was a
crime. What should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of member of the Anti-smuggling Unit. Rodil answered in the affirmative and
their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Abuse of strength Masana invited him to join him in his table.
is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a  Rodil accepted the invitation. During their conversation Masana asked for
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor but also identification of Rodil and the latter showed his ID. Masana told Rodil that his
when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the ID was fake and Rodil insisted that it was genuine. Masana was demanding
defense available to the offended party. Here, the victim was totally helpless in that Rodil surrender his ID to him but Rodil refused. When Rodil refused
the face of two (2) perpetrators who were armed with a gun and a knife. Masana pulled out his gun and hit the accused on the head with its handle for 2
Disregard of respect due to sex. However, the aggravating circumstance of times and as a result blood gushed out from his head and face.
disregard of the respect due to the victim by reason of her sex cannot be
 Rodil pulled out his dagger and stabbed Masana and then ran out of the accused must have the intention to offend, injure, or assault the offended party
restaurant. as a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
 Rodil went to the direction of the Municipal building where he intended to 3. Yes
surrender. On his was he met the Chief of Police and he was accompanied to  Whenever there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the
the municipal building and was given first aid treatment. offended party, this aggravating circumstance sometimes is present.
 Mesana identified himself as a PC officer and the accused is merely a member
Issues of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status.
1. WON self-defense can be availed by Rodil  Rank – refers to a high social position or standing
2. WON the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or  Cases wherein the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was
homicide complexed with assault upon an agent of authority. appreciated
3. WON the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated a. People vs. Benito – clerk murdered assistant chief of the personnel
transaction division
Ratio: b. People vs. Torres – murder of Col. Salgado and injuries to Gen. Castaneda
1. No c. People vs. Valeriano – murder of district judge
 Self-defense must be proven by clear, sufficient, satisfactory and convincing  Chief of Police (Panaligan) was present during the incident. Panaligan was the
evidence one who wrested the dagger from Rodil and the accused knew him to be the
 Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the chief of police.
weakness of the prosecution.  Chief of police is considered a public authority or a person in authority for he is
 Having admitted the wounding or killing of the victim, the accused must be held vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and is
liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law
of legitimate self-defense.
 Court cannot perceive how the refusal of the accused to give his ID could have
provoked or enraged the deceased to the extent of initiating the aggression by Dissent: Melencio-Herrera
drawing his pistol and hitting the accused with its butt.  Contempt of, or which insult to public authorities to be considered as
 It is the accused who had every reason to be resentful of the deceased and to aggravating, it is essential that:
be enraged after the deceased refused to heed his plea that his gun be o Crime is committed in the presence of a public authority, not a mere agent
returned. of the authorities
2. Crime committed was homicide (No complex crime but there is a general o Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions and is not the
aggravating circumstance. ) person against whom the crime is committed.
 Murder – it was established by the prosecution that during the stabbing  Masana is not a public authority nor a person in authority he is a mere agent of
incident, appellant suddenly and without giving the victim a chance to defend a person in authority
himself, stabbed the latter several times with a dagger, inflicting mortal  Disregard of the respect due to rank
wounds. o There must be a difference in social condition of the offender and the
 No treachery – assailant and victim was face to face. Attack was not offended party
treacherous because the victim was able to ward off the same with his hand. o Offender and offended are of the same rank the aggravating circumstance
Force of warding off the attack was so strong that the accused bump his head does not apply
on a table nearby, causing injuries to him. Failed to show that the accused  Difference in rank bet a lieutenant and officer of anti-smuggling unit is not such
made any preparation to kill his victim so as to insure the commission of the of a degree as to justify consideration of disrespect of rank due to the offended
crime, making it at the same time possible or hard for the victim to defend party.
himself or retaliate.
 Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the PEOPLE v. DANIEL
person employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which Appeal from the judgment of CFI Baguio City, Belmonte. 1978.
tend to directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make. FACTS: 13-yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint against Amado Daniel alias
 Information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or “Amado Ato” for the crime of rape.
at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. On Sept 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt Province, arrived in Baguio City from
 Such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the information; Tublay in a Dangwa bus. She was then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as
otherwise, in the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge would only she was a high school student at the Baguio Eastern High School. While she was
be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel came and started molesting her by
 It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the latter and
was a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the instead called the attention of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely
shrugged by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused. Despite
the rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100meters away. he was also treated at the Baguio General Hospital for addiction to gasoline,
The accused followed her and rode and sat beside her. When Margarita alighted in and; that he had not shown any indication that he was crazy. Dr. Gerona III of
Guisad, she was again followed by the accused. Reaching her boarding house, she the NCMH (National center for Mental Health) testified that accused was
opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed admitted to the NCMH 20 days after the crime; that the accused was suffering
the door behind him. He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, from schizophrenia, described as a mental disorder characterized by thought
“If you will talk, I will kill you.” Because of her fear, Margarita fell silent. She was disturbances, hallucination, suspiciousness, and deterioration in areas of work,
then forced to lie down w/ the accused placing a handkerchief in her mouth and social relations and self-care; that schizophrenia can be caused by use of
holding a dagger to her neck. Her attempts to flee was to no avail as she was only substances (inhaling gasoline and alcoholism); that he could not say whether
4 ft 8 inches tall & 95 lbs while Daniel was 5 ft 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. the accused was insane at the time he committed the crime.
The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita. Thereafter  Marina Gabel-Banez, mother of the accused, testified that he had been confined
she lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had already gone. for more than a year at the Bicutan rehab Center; that he was also treated at
For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since the Baguio General hospital; that after killing his father, he was confined at the
1963 and this was in fact the 2nd time he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he Mandaluyong mental hospital for treatment; that his wife left him and he
alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and was actually surprised the she filed blamed his in-laws for his marital troubles; that he resorted to gasoline to
the complaint against him. forget his problems, and; that he was not a drunkard.
Medico-Legal report indicated that Margarita was a virgin before the incident  The trial court found him guilty of parricide with the aggravating circumstance
complained of. of dwelling and habitual intoxication and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
HELD: The crime committed by Daniel is rape w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/ the death
aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of the offended
party. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her Issues:
room constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term is used in Art 1. WON he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime and should be
14 (3) RPC. It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the place exempt from criminal liability under Art. 12 of the RPC. - No.
where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his  Accused must prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he
home the sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold. killed his father in order to be considered exempt from criminal liability
The correct penalty is death pursuant to Aft 335 RPC. However, for lack of the  In People vs. Formigones: "it is necessary that there be a complete
necessary number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be applied. deprivation of intelligence in committing the act; that the accused be
Daniel is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he
indemnify Margarita Paleng by way or moral damages of PhP12K. acts without the least discernment; that there be a complete absence of
power to discern...insanity at the time of the commission of the act should
PEOPLE v. BAÑEZ absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, because mere
301 SCRA 248 (1999) abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability." People
vs. Rafanan, Jr: "Formigoens established 2 distinguishable tests: (a) the
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan test of cognition...and (b) the test of volition..But our caselaw shows
common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on a test relating to
Facts: 'freedom of the will.'"
 Wilfredo Bañez was found by the RTC to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of  Burden to prove his insanity at the time of the commission of the act rests
parricide for the killing of his father, Bernardo Bañez, and sentenced him to on the defense. But he was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt his
suffer the penalty of death. insanity at the time immediately preceding the killing or at the very
 Accused was living with in his parents' house. On August 14, 1994, his sisters, moment of the killing. Evidence merely consisted of the testimony of his
Elvira Bañez-Bustamante and Emelinda Bañez-Antiado came to the house mother regarding his treatments. The testimony of Dr. Gerona III is
because their father complained that the accused made trouble whenever inconclusive as to whether the accused was insane at the time immediately
drunk. preceding the killing or at the very moment of the killing. He could not
 They were discussing the plan for putting up the accused in another house or have testified to this effect, considering that he treated the accused after
sleeping quarters. Afterwards, the accused, who looked drunk because he was the accused was confine at the NCMH.
red in the face, ran into the kitchen, got 2 knives, went into his father's room
and stabbed him. Elvira tried to take away the knives but he lunged at her and 2. WON there exists the aggravating circumstances of intoxication and dwelling in
stabbed he. Emelinda also tried to stop him. He chased her while Elvira locked the commission of the crime - No.
herself in their father's room. After the accused had left, she rushed their father  Dwelling cannot be considered aggravating because accused and his father
to the hospital but he was already dead. were living in the same house where the crime was committed. The
 The accused entered a plea of insanity. rationale for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is the
 Elvira testified that the accused had been staying in their father's house for 4 violation by the offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by
years after the accused separated from his wife; that he was confined at the trespassing therein to commit the crime. The reason is entirely absent in
Bicutan Rehabilitation Center for addiction to gasoline and was discharged; that this case. Regarding the aggravating circumstance of intoxication, it has
not been shown that it is habitual or intentional as required by Art 15 of
the RPC. Even assuming that the accused was drunk at the time he
committed the crime, it was not shown that he is a habitual and excessive
drinker or that he intentionally got drunk. Neither can intoxication be
mitigating because there is no showing that he accused was so drunk that
his will power was impaired or that he could not comprehend the
wrongfulness of his acts.
3. WON the trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty upon the
accused instead of reclusion perpetua on the assumption that he was sane at
the time of the killing. - No.
 Under RA 7659, the penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
Since in this case there was neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

Judgment: the decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua