CRIM DIGESTS PARTS D1-E1

D. STAGES OF A FELONY (Art. 6, RPC)

Subjective and Objective Phase

US vs Eduave
Plaintiff: United States
Respondent: Protasio Eduave
FACTS:
Protasio Eduave became incensed with a local girl because she had charged him criminally with
having raped her and having caused with pregnancy. When the opportunity presented itself, Eduave
rushed upon the girl and struck her from behind with a bolo, severely injuring her. The girl did not die
from her injuries, hence the murder was not consummated. The case is set to the SC to review what crime
Eduave committed.
ISSUES:
- Whether Eduave is guilty of frustrated or attempted murder (Frustrated)
RULING:
- The crime is clearly murder, because treachery is present in that Eduave made a sudden attack
on his victim from the rear, and attacked her from there.
- In this case, the murder is FRUSTRATED
o In a frustrated felony, the offender performs all acts of execution which should
produce the felony as a consequence, but which nevertheless do not produce it by reasons of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
o In the present case, Eduave performed all the acts which should have resulted in the
consummated crime, and desisted from committing any further acts. The murder was
not consummated because of factors outside of Eduave’s control. Eduave performed
ALL ACTS IN THE SUBJECTIVE PHASE. The subjective phases is that portion of
the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission
of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts,
should result in the consummated crime.

Valenzuela vs People
G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007
FACTS:
On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club,
a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a
security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw
petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),"
hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded these
cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the
supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again
unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space.
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and hailed a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it
towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic
inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi
as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,
petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow
security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen
merchandise recovered.
The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of
Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of
P12,090.00.
In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. They were
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to seven
(7) years of prision mayor as maximum.
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of
frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. Decision dated 19 June 2003,
the Court of Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed petitioner’s conviction
thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of theft committed has a frustrated stage.

HELD:
NO. The petition was DENIED. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is
consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

Article 308
states that, in the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that there be
taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to
gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since
he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued
from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or
consummated.

Consummated (Article 7 in relation to Article 9, RPC)

Frustrated (Articles 50, 250, 297, RPC)
Attempted (Article 51, RPC)

US vs Adiao
Petitioner: United States, Respondent: Tomas Adiao
GR No. L-13785, October 8, 1918, Justice Malcolm
FACTS:
Thomas Adiao, a customs inspector, feloniously took a leather belt valued a P0.80 from the
baggage of T. Murakami, a Japanese national. Adiao was subsequently caught, and hence was unable to
get the belt outside of the Customs House. The trial court ruled that Murakami was guilty of frustrated
theft, as he had no chance to dispose of the stolen belt.
ISSUES:
- Whether Adiao is guilty of frustrated theft or consummated theft (Consummated theft)
RULING:
- Theft is consummated when a person, with intent to gain but without violence, against, or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent (Art. 308, RPC). In this case, all of the elements are present. The fact that Adiao was
unable to dispose of the stolen property because he got caught is immaterial, because disposition of a
stolen property for personal gain is not an element of theft.
- There exists an aggravating circumstance, in that Adiao used his public position as customs
inspector to dispose of the belt. Hence, he is sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor,
with the costs of all instances against him.

Beltran vs Court of Appeals

Benjamin Beltran Jr., Virgilio Beltran v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 181355 - 30 March 2011
Ponente: Perez, J.

Facts:
Jan. 20, 1998 - Petitioners allegedly stole the hand tractor of Vicente Ollanes in Sta. Elena, Bula,
Camarines Sur at around 6pm. Multiple testimonies (that of Rafael the helper, Remberto the tanod, etc.)
show that the accused together with an accomplice (Francisco 'Paquito' Bravo) stole the said hand tractor
and hid it in their nipa hut. The petitioners countered by claiming that they were away in different towns
that day because of their work. They claimed that although they had no tension with Vicente, their
parents once had a confrontation with him with regards to their agricultural land. Lolita Beltran, their
mother added by saying that she knew Vicente and that he had already framed her family before. The
Barangay captain testified that Lolita had left their camalig in his care and that on Feb. 11, 1998, he
discovered the missing hand tractor in the Beltran nipa hut with the missing engine.

The RTC found the petitioners guilty of theft and ordered that civild damages be paid. The CA affirmed
this decision and modified it, adding the serving time and civil damages.

The petitioners contend that the lower courts erred in their decisions despite not proving that they had
committed the crime. Furthermore, the inconsistency of the barangay blotter as to what kind of engine
was stolen (F-5 or F-6) adds doubt to the crime that they are being accused of.

Issue:
W/N the crime of theft was committed by the petitioners? YES.
Held:
The crime of theft has 5 elements: a.) that there be taking of personal property, b.) that said property
belongs to another, c.) that the taking be done with intent to gain, d.) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner, and e.) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things. The petitioners are assailing the first element. They
contend that the blotter inconsitencies as to which engine was actually stolen does not prove that they did
steal anything. However, the SC ruled that what they are assailing is the type of engine, and not the fact
that something was stolen. It's as if they have accepted that something was stolen despite the ambiguity
to what exactly that item is. The testimonies of the complainants have been consistent as to what engine
was really stolen (only the barangay blotter was inconsistent due to the error).

Although only the engine was eventually removed and taken, leaving the body which was recovered, it
cannot be said that no theft was consummated. The theft was completed the very moment the hand
tractor was taken. It did not matter that only the engine was eventually taken. Even though the hand
tractor was recovered, it does not discredit the fact that it was stolen.

Ruling:
CA ruling AFFIRMED with modifications.

Valenzuela vs People (supra)

People vs Hernandez (1925)

49 Phil. 980
14 October 1925
Ponente: Ostrand, J.

Facts:
Domingo Hernandez, 70 year-old defendant, was accused and found guilty of the crime of rape of
Conrada Jocson, 9 years old. The victim is the granddaughter of Domingo’s wife. The crime happened at
the house where they all lived in. The lower court found Domingo guilty of frustrated rape for the reason
that there was no complete penetration of the hymen.

Issue:
Whether or not Domingo is guilty of frustrated rape?

Held: No. He is guilty of consummated rape.

In the present case, the physician who examined the victim immediately after the commission of the
crime found the labia and the opening of the vagina inflamed together with an abundance of semen,
though the hymen was intact. It also appears from the evidence that Domingo lay on top of the victim for
over 15 minutes and continued his efforts of penetration during that period, the victim testifies that
Domingo succeeded in a partial penetration and that she felt intense pain. In these circumstances, the
crime must be regarded as consummated rape.
The court held that finding the hymen intact is not always proof that rape has been committed, nor
virginity. For the case are not rare where the hymen had to be removed after impregnation and in order to
permit delivery. Moreover, any penetration whether reaching to the hymen or not is sufficient to
constitute the crime. Scientific and anatomical distinctions as to where the vagina commences are
worthless in a case of rape. It is enough if the woman’s body is entered — whether it has gone past the
hymen or even so as far as to touch the hymen. The entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, merely,
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction of the
consummate crime of rape.

People vs Campuhan
FACTS:
April 25, 1996 4 pm: Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of 4-year old Crysthel Pamintuan, went
to the ground floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her 2 children. There she met
Primo Campuhan, helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon, who was then busy filling small plastic
bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second floor.
Then she heard Crysthel cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" so she went upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan
inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were
already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees and his hands holding his penis with his
right hand
Horrified, she cursed "P - t - ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. He evaded
her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside who she tried to block his path. Corazon then
ran out and shouted for help thus prompting Vicente, her brother, a cousin and an uncle who were living
within their compound, to chase the Campuhan who was apprehended. They called the barangay officials
who detained.
Physical examination yielded negative results as Crysthel ‘s hymen was intact
Campuhan’s defense was that Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back when she
suddenly pulled him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor.
RTC finds the accused guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death.
Thus, subject to automatic review

ISSUE: W/N it was a consummated statutory rape

HELD: NO. MODIFIED. guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term
of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. Costs de
oficio.

• People v. De la Peña: labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated

• Primo's kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible
• Crysthel made a categorical statement denying penetration but her vocabulary is yet as
underdeveloped
• Corazon narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand, thus showing that he had
yet to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his victim
• the possibility of Primo's penis having breached Crysthel's vagina is belied by the child's own
assertion that she resisted Primo's advances by putting her legs close together and that she did not feel any
intense pain but just felt "not happy" about what Primo did to her. Thus, she only shouted "Ayo'ko,
ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!
• no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim

People vs Hernandez (1929) 54 Phil 122 (Jake)

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Antonino Hernandez
Ponente: Avancena J.

Facts: On the night of February 3, 1929, Miguel Dayrit was asleep with children in his house situated in
the barrio of Duque, Mabalacat, Pampanga. He woke up and noticed that his roof was on fire. Looking
out the window, he saw Hernandez beside his house, carrying a stick.

Miguel Dayrit shouted for help, and started to put out the fire, which he succeeded in doing but a portion
of the roof burned. Artemio Tanglao answered Miguel’s call for help and reported seeing Hernandez
running away. Daniel Mallari also came, and on his way to the house met the defendant. The appellant
knew that Miguel Dayrit and his children lived and were in the house that night.

The testimony of the witnesses, the fact that the stick was found to be doused in petroleum and was
identified to belong to Hernandez (used it to pick guava) and because of accounts of a previous altercation
(accused was stealing Miguel’s paddy) by Miguel and accused where the latter promised to “cut him to
pieces” were enough proof to ascertain the guilt of Hernandez.

Issues: Was it frustrated arson or consummated arson?

Held: Trial court said it was mere frustrated arson. This court disagrees saying that since a portion of
Miguel’s house was burned, notwithstanding being able to put out the fire, it was consummated arson.
The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage caused.

Decision: Hernandez was found guilty of arson. With aggravating circumstances because he knew Miguel
and his children were inside the house - sentenced to life imprisonment. (But since he was 85, court seeks
to grant him executive clemency from Attorney-General)

People vs Caballero
G.R. No. 149028-30
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.
Facts
1. Teresito Mondragon lived in a compound with his family, along with Ricardo Caballero
(accused) and his family, and Myrna Bawin (witness), sister of Eugene Tayactac(victim #1), and
her family. Beside the compound was the house of Leonilo Broce (victim #2), a nephew of
Wilma Broce.
2. Aug 3, 1994 – Armando, Robito, and Marciano (all Caballero), were drinking in the
compound one afternoon. At around 7pm, Eugene and Arnold Barcuma (Victim #3) arrived at
the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce. While Eugene was standing by the store, Armando arrived
and angrily asked Eugene if he was going to buy anything. Eugene replied noticing Armando’s
tone and stated that there was no quarrel between them. Armando left, but waited by the gate of
the compound.
3. Eugene then walked towards the house of his girlfriend, Susana, and passed by the
Mondragon Compound when Armando, Ricardo, Robito, and Marciano, Jr. ambushed him,
hitting him with a wooded stick, and getting stabbed in the chest by Robito and Marciano, Jr.
Arnold saw the commotion and went to help but was also attacked and stabbed the latter. Arnold
fled for his life. Leonilo rushed from his house towards the commotion where he was attacked by
Robito only. The former was stabbed in his chest before he retreated and asked his uncle for
help. Then Teresito Mondragon arrived and pacified the Caballero brothers stopping the
commotion. Eugene and Leonilo died of their injuries while Arnold would have died if it were
not for the timely medical assistance. (Serious Physical Injuries)
4. The Caballero Brothers were charged with the murder of Eugene and Leonilo, and
frustrated murder for Arnold.
Issues
1. W/N there was a conspiracy between the brothers to kill Eugene?
Disposition
MODIFIED. The Caballero brothers, except Robito (at large), are not liable for the murder of
Leonilo Broce.
Rationale
1. YES. Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself;
however, direct proof is not required. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence
(collective acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony). The overt
act of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of a crime; all the
malefactors had the same purpose, and were united in execution. Moreover, one is not criminally
liable for his act done outside the contemplation of the conspirators.
a. All brothers ambushed and stabbed Eugene. Therefore they are liable for Eugene’s death.
b. When Arnold came to help, Ricardo stabbed him, soon his other brothers joined in.
Therefore they are all liable for Arnold’s Injuries
c. Only Robito stabbed Leonilo, therefore only Robito is liable for Leonilo’s death.
2. The crime was committed with Treachery. Treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on
the unarmed victim. None of the victims were armed, ergo the brothers acted with treachery.
3. The situation with Arnold is a frustrated murder since all the necessary acts were done to
cause the death of Arnold (successfully reached the Objective phase), however, as testified by
the Dr. Quisumbing, if it weren’t for the timely medical intervention, Arnold would have died.
Thus, all the elements to commit the Felony were committed, but the felony was not produced by
reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator.
People vs Kalalo
People v. Kalalo
GR Nos. L-39303-39305 - 17 March 1934
Ponente: Diaz, J.

Facts:
Nov. 10, 1932 - Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kalalo, and Gregorio Ramos were tried in the CFI of
Batangas with Alejandro Garcia, Alipia Abrenica and Fausta Abrenica in criminal cases Nos. 6858-6860
(the 1st two for murder and the 3rd for frustrated murder). The three cases were tried together where the
court acquitted Garcia and the two Abrenicas.

Prior to the crime, Marcelo and Isabela Holgado (sister of deceased) had a dispute over a piece of land in
San Luis, Batangas. Marcelo filed two complaints alleging that Isabela reaped the crops that he planted.
However, these complaints were dismissed.

Oct. 1, 1931 - Isabela and her brother, Arcadio Holgado (one of the deceased), ordered the plowing of the
disputed lands (employing several laborers). Marelo, accompanied by his brothers (Felipe and Juan), and
brothers-in-law (Gregorio and Alejandro) arrived, ordering the workers to stop. Marcelino Panaligan
(one of the deceased) ordered the laborers to continue. The suspects hacked Arcadio and Marcelino with
their bolos who died instantly. Marcelo then took Marcelino's revolver and shot Hilario Holgado as the
latter was fleeing.

Issue:
W/N the accused are guilty of murder or simple homicide in each of the cases? ONLY SIMPLE
HOMICIDE.

Held:
Under Art. 248 of the RPC, the circumstance of 'abuse of superior strength' raises homicide to murder.
However, since the victims were also armed with a bolo and revolver, this circumstance is in doubt. The
revolver possessed by Marcelino actually negates any numerical advantage that Marcelo's group has.
Therefore, no abuse of superior strength is present thus making the charge only simple homicide.

As to the third case, the firing of four consecutive shots to the fleeing Hilario shows the intent of Marcelo
to kill the former. He performed everything necessary to commit the crime that he determined to commit
but failed by reason of causes independent of his will (his poor aiming or the efficient dodging of bullets
of Hilario). Thus, Marcelo should be charged with attempted homicide.

Ruling:
All appellants: Case No. 6858 (GR No. 39303) - reclusion temporal for the death of Marcelino Panaligan
All appellants: Case No. 6859 (GR No. 39304) - reclusion temporal for the death of Arcadio Holgado
Marcelo Kalalo: Case No. 6860 (GR No. 39305) - prision correcional for attempted homicide

People vs Salvilla
G.R. No. 86163
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Facts
1. A robbery was staged by Bienvenido Salvilla, Reynaldo Canasares, Ronaldo Canasares,
and Simplicio Canasares in the New Iloilo Lumber Yard. The accused were armed with guns and
a hand grenade. Upon entering the establishment, they met Robita Habiero, an employee, and
told her that it was a hold up and made her go back to the office.
2. Salvilla then went to poinr a gun at the owner, Severino Choco, and his two children, one
of which was a minor, and told the owner that all they needed was Money, to which Severino
complied providing P20,000 in a paper bag, and handed it to Salvilla.
3. Severino pleaded that the 4 accused to leave, but they didn’t. Instead they took the two
daughters and brought them to the room where they were held hostage. A few hours later the
hostages and accused were allowed to eat. After, Salvina told Severino to produce P100,000 for
them to leave. Severino said he could not since banks were closed on Saturdays.
4. Soon the police had surrounded the premises and tried negotiating with the accused. The
police repeatedly requested the accused to surrender and that no harm would fall on them. The
accused just reiterated their conditions to be released (P100,000). The mayor eventually arrived
and negotiated with the accused for 4 hours, until they came to the agreement of P50,000 for the
release of a single hostage. Ultimatums were given, but the accused did not budge. Eventually
the police stormed the premises which resulted in injuries to the girls.
5. The Court a quo convicted of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal
Detention and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Issues
1. W/N the crime of robbery was consummated?
2. W/N the accused can avail of a mitigating circumstance due to their “surrender”?
Disposition
Court a quo AFFIRMED
Rationale
1. YES. Robbery/theft is the taking of another’s property. If there is no actual taking, there
can be no robbery. The appellants contend that while the “giving” of the property was proven,
the “taking” was not as they alleged to not have touched the money (they claim it was only
P5,000) on the counter. This claim was countered by the testimony of Rodita who said that
Severino handed the paper bag with the 20k in it and gave it to the accused. Simplico also took
the wallet and wristwatch of Severino. Therefore, the taking was proven. “The crime [of
robbery] is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a short
time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber…”
2. NO. The accused contend that they intended to surrender therefore it should count as a
mitigating circumstance. To be mitigating, a surrender must be: (1) the offender had not actually
been arrested, (2) the offender surrendered himself to the person of authority, (3) that the
surrender was voluntary. Nothing in the facts suggests that the accused “surrendered”
voluntarily. They were given multiple chances to surrender, but they refused until the police
swarmed the crime scene. Ergo, there was no voluntary surrender.
Notes
There was some stuff about the punishment. His complete charge was Robbery with Serious Physical
Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention. Under Art 48 of the RPC, in a complex crime, the crime with the
greater punishment shall be applied, which in this case is, Serious Illegal Detention. Thus, reclusion
perpetua to death.

People v Gonzales Jr. GRNo. 139542 (Jake)

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Inocencio Gonzales Jr.
Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes J.

Facts: On Oct 31, 1998 both families of Noel Andres (with pregnant wife, son, nephew and sister-in-law)
and Inocencio Gonzales Jr. were leaving Loyola Memorial Park. At an intersection, the vehicles of the
two almost collided. Inocencio continued to drive along his way and Noel chased after him and cut him
off. Noel got out of his car and knocked on Inocencio’s window.

There are conflicting sides to this part of the story. Noel alleged that he calmly told Inocencio to be
careful while driving. He saw that the latter was fuming red so he went back to his car, but was blocked
by Inocencio’s son, Dino who asked him “and problems mo sa erpat ko.” Feeling threatened, he went
inside his car and opened the window to talk back to Dino. Suddenly, one of his passengers said “binaril
kami.” He turned and saw that his wife was bloodied and unconscious, and his son and nephew were also
wounded.

On Inocencio’s account, he said that Noel repeatedly cursed at him. Noel went back to his vehicle and
positioned it straight in front of Inocenscio’s car. Dino, who rode in another vehicle, noticed his father
was not behind him and went back to find his father and Noel having an altercation. Then they said Noel
reached for something in his car. Thinking that his son was in imitate danger, Inocencio got his gun from
his car, but when he saw that Noel did not have a weapon, he lowered his. This was when Trisha,
Inocencio’s daughter, hugged her father and held his hand that was holding the gun. Inocencio said that
the weight of his daughter caused him to lose balance and accidentally fire the gun towards the direction
of Noel’s car. Inocencio said that he did not know he shot someone until Noel’s sister in law brought out
a bloodied boy. He claimed that he did not try to flee and even tried to help the victims.

Information of complex crimes of murder, attempted murder and double frustrated murder were filed
against Inocencion to which he pleaded not guilty. Records show that Noel’s wife died of gunshot wound
but did not die instantly and was able to give birth to a baby girl.

In the trial court’s investigations, they focused on the weapon used by Inocencio to prove murder with
treachery. They demonstrated that the said gun will not fire even if the bullet was loaded in the chamber if
the hammer is unlocked; or even If cocked if safety pin was engaged and that the gun should be leveled to
the target to hit it. Trial court found this as enough proof to prove that there is treachery when offender
committed the crime. (Treachery is done when 1. The employment of means of execution gives person
attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and 2. That the means were deliberately or consciously
adopted.) So trial court found appellant guilty of the crimes and penalized with jail time + payments of
civil liabilities as provided.

Issue:
Did trial court err in saying Treachery was present? YES
Did court fail to consider mitigating circumstances? NO

Held: OSG finds that the decision of the trial court to equate the type of gun that was used with treachery
to be false. Treachery has to be assailed by qualifying circumstances - mode of attack implored by the
accused. Since the shooting was done after a heated argument and was done impulsively, there was no
proof that Inocencio deliberately implored means to attack Noel and his family and while doing so
eliminating chances for defense and retaliation. Therefore the death of Noel’s wife should be declared
homicide, not murder. With respect to the injuries of the 2 kids, the OSG said that it was still frustrated
homicide since the injuries could have killed them. And with regards to the mitigating circumstances,
witnesses claimed that Inocencio actually tired to flee the scene of the crime but was prevented to do so
by traffic.

SC found that the appeal of Inocencio has merit.

SC affirms the position of the OSG that the death of Noel’s wife was homicide, since there was no
treachery. SC added that Noel lied in his testimony saying that he was calm in telling Inocencio to be
careful. It was highly improbable for Inocencio to be mad if Noel approached him calmly.

Also, eyewitnesses claimed that if Inocencio intended to kill Noel, he could have done so since they were
in close proximity; that there was no one or nothing stopping him from killing Noel. Inocencio shot the
left side of Noel’s car, not knowing that there were people inside the car since Noel’s car was heavily
tinted. This proves that there was no intent to kill Noel.

With regards to the children’s injuries, the court said that the crime was supposed to be two counts of
slight physical injuries. The lack of intent to kill ascertained that the crime committed against the children
was not frustrated homicide. Also, physicians examined the wounds of the children and found that they
are not actually fatal in itself, but fatal if left untreated.

Concerning the mitigating circumstances Inocencio brings forward, the SC found witnesses stating that
indeed Inocencio tried to flee the scene of the crime but was blocked by Noel and onlookers. Also, SC
added that provocation cannot be a mitigating circumstance - while it was true that Noel manifested
aggressive behavior, it was not sufficient provocation to shoot the vehicle.

Additional info: rules of imposition of complex crimes under Art48 of the RPC cannot be applicable since
the rules require 2 or more grave and/or less grave and/or less grave felonies.

Decision: Decision of the trial court is MODIFIED. Appellant is guilty of homicide, sentencing him to
prison mayor in its medium period as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum.
For each count of slight physical injuries, appellant is sentenced to 20 days arrests menor. + awards for
moral damages.

People vs Lamahang
FACTS:
● The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision finding him guilty of attempted
robbery.
● At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on
Delgado and C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the accused in the act of making
an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods located on the last named
street.
● At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
● The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the
wall, when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody.

ISSUE:
WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery

RULING:
YES, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery. The accused is then held guilty of
attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor.

RATIONALE:
It is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance
of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. In the case of robbery, it
must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of
some personal property belonging to another. In the instant case, it may only be inferred as a logical
conclusion that his evident intention was to enter by means of force said store against the will of its
owner. That his final objective, once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical
injury to the inmates, or to commit any other offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a concrete
finding.
It must be borne in mind (I Groizard, p. 99) that in offenses not consummated, as the material
damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be ascertained, but
the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion medio). The relation existing
between the facts submitted for appreciation and the offense which said facts are supposed to produce
must be direct; the intention must be ascertained from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in order to
avoid regrettable instances of injustice.
Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court is of the opinion that the fact under
consideration does not constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling. Against the
accused must be taken into consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and former
convictions, — inasmuch as the record shows that several final judgments for robbery and theft have been
rendered against him — and in his favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
People vs Borinaga
G.R. No. 33463
18 December 1930
Ponente: Malcolm, J.

Facts:
The victim Harry Mooney, an American who resided in Calubian Leyte, contracted with Juan Lawaan for
the construction of a fish corral. Lawaan attempted to collect the whole amount of the contract even
though the corralis not yet finished. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him
that something would happen to him.On that evening, Mooney was in the store of his neighbor, sitting
with his back towards a window when suddenly Basilio Borinaga struck him with a knife. The knife
imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. Borinaga
left the scene but after ten minutes, here turned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by
Mooneyand his neighbor frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.

Issue:
Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder? YES

Held:
As an essential condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all theacts of execution, attending the
attack. There was nothing left that he could dofurther to accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the
failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarilydesisted
from further acts. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.

Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:

“The acts of execution perfomed by Borinaga did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not
could they have produced it because the blow did not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction of the
deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of Mooney.” What the back of the chair prevented was the
wounding of Mooney, not his death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence had been
performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony, according to the law, and not the preventing of the
performances of all the acts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case. Attempted
murder only.

E. CONSPIRACY and proposal to commit a felony (Article 8,RPC. See also Article 296, RPC)
Articles 115, 136, 141, 186, 306, and 340, RPC

People vs Tulin
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Cecilio Changco, Andres Infante, Chiong Sa-Hiong
Ponente: Justice Melo
GR 111709 August 30, 2001
FACTS:
M/T Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded
with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil, with a
total value of P40,426,793,87. was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island.The vessel,
manned by 21 crew members, was suddenly boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully
armed pirates led by Emilio Changco. The pirates were armed with rifles, handguns, and bolos. They
detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, they paint over the name "M/T
Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the PNOC logo, and then painted with
the name "Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras.
The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that
the ship was undergoing repairs. They anchored about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline
where another vessel called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of "M/T
Tabangao" to transfer the vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". The company was then dealing for
the first time with Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the former bunker oil for the
amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong supervised the crew of
"Navi Pride" in receiving the cargo.

The members of the crew were released in three batches with the stern warning not to report the
incident to government authorities for a period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they would
be killed. They were fetched from the shoreline by a newly painted passenger jeep driven by accused-
appellant Cecilio Changco. On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the members of the
crew, called the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation office to report the incident. The crew
members were brought to the Coast Guard Office for investigation. The incident was also reported to the
National Bureau of Investigation where the officers and members of the crew executed sworn statements
regarding the incident.
A series of arrests was effected and on October 24, 1991 an Information charging qualified piracy
or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-
appellants. The Branch 49 of the RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region rendered a decision
convicting accused-appellants of the crime charged.
ISSUES:
- W/N the accused are rightly charged with qualified piracy (YES)
- W/N conspiracy was established (YES)
RULING:
- On Piracy: The accused presented a weak alibi, in that the captain of M/T Tabangao recruited
them to work on the ship. This defense must fail in the face of the positive identification provided by
prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the accused’s defense is contrary to human instinct, in that they
agreed to work on a ship without being appraised of the destination and without even saying goodbye
to their family. As for Chango, his defense that he was in his house in Bacoor when the crime
happened is patently weak, especially given the fact that his alibi was uncorroborated by other
witnesses.
- On Conspiracy: While it was Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. who actually attacked and seized
M/T Tabangao, Changco was to fetch the master and members of the crew from Calatagan and bring
them to Imus. While Chango did not actually participate in the seizing of the vessel, he performed his
 task in view of a common objective. As for Hiong, he is liable because he aided the pirates in
disposing of the stolen cargo by personally directing its transfer from M/T Galilee to M/T Navi Pride.
He also falsified documents which enabled the illegal transfer to pass through the Singapore Port
Authorities. If Hiong was as “unaware” of the transfer as he claimed he is, then he should have
stopped the transfer given the irregularities present.
- The SC affirms the conviction of all of the accused as PRINCIPALS of the crime of PIRACY
in Philippine Waters.

People vs Pugay
People v. Pugay
No. L-74324 - 17 November 1988
Ponente: Medialdea, J.

Facts:
May 19, 1982 - In the plaza of Rosario, Cavite, Bayani Miranda, a person with a mental handicap, was
burned to death allegedly by Fernando Pugay and Benjamin Samson.

The deceased and the accused were actually friends. Eduardo Gabion, the witness, was sitting near the
ferris wheel, reading a comic book, when the deceased and accused arrived. Pugay and Samson were
making fun of Miranda and started to poke the latter with a piece of wood to force him to dance. Pugay
then poured gasoline on Miranda which prompted Gabion to ask the two to stop. Samson then lit the
gasoline which burned Miranda instantly. As people were trying to douse the fire, the police came and
brought the two suspects, Gabion, and several other people to the municipal building for questioning.
Gabion narrated his account, positively identifying Pugay and Samson. Pugay claimed that he thought
that the gasoline can contained water while Samson claimed that he did not see the person who set
Miranda on fire. Both suspects did not impute Gabion.

The RTC found Pugay to be guilty of murder (but sentenced to prision mayor - prision temporal for some
mitigating circumstances) and Samson to be guilty of murder (reclusion perpetua).

The accused assails the credibility of Gabion and questions the charge of murder.

Issue:
W/N the conspiracy to commit murder is present in the case? NO.

Held:
Although it is evident that Pugay and Samson doused Miranda with gasoline and set him on fire,
respectively, no proof was presented to show that this act was premeditated. There was no animosity
between the accused and the deceased. They merely wanted to make fun of Miranda. The criminal
liability is therefore individual and not collective.

Pugay's claim that he did not know the contents of the can is highly unlikely because the gasoline smell
should have been too strong to be unnoticeable. He failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid
every undesirable consequence and is thus guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Hence, his
sentence should be amended to arresto mayor - prision correccional.

There was no proof that Samson had a reason to kill Miranda. Like Pugay, he was merely making fun of
the deceased. For treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate. There is no doubt that Samson knew
that gasoline was poured on Miranda. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, it can be conceded that
he could have just wanted to burn the deceased's clothes. Nevertheless, this does not erase his criminal
liability because the intent to burn someone's clothes automatically brings with it the risk of physically
injuring the victim. No sufficient evidence shows that treachery and premeditated planning was involved
and thus amends the conviction to that of homicide. No intent to commit a grave wrong was shown in
Gabion's testimony that both suspects were stunned to see Miranda burn. Pugay's sentence should thus be
changed to prision mayor - reclusion temporal.

Damages shall also be paid by the two to Miranda's family amounting to around 58k.

Ruling:
Lower court judgment AFFIRMED with modifications as indicated.

People vs Caballero
G.R. No. 149028-30
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.
Facts
1. Teresito Mondragon lived in a compound with his family, along with Ricardo Caballero
(accused) and his family, and Myrna Bawin (witness), sister of Eugene Tayactac(victim #1), and
her family. Beside the compound was the house of Leonilo Broce (victim #2), a nephew of
Wilma Broce.
2. Aug 3, 1994 – Armando, Robito, and Marciano (all Caballero), were drinking in the
compound one afternoon. At around 7pm, Eugene and Arnold Barcuma (Victim #3) arrived at
the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce. While Eugene was standing by the store, Armando arrived
and angrily asked Eugene if he was going to buy anything. Eugene replied noticing Armando’s
tone and stated that there was no quarrel between them. Armando left, but waited by the gate of
the compound.
3. Eugene then walked towards the house of his girlfriend, Susana, and passed by the
Mondragon Compound when Armando, Ricardo, Robito, and Marciano, Jr. ambushed him,
hitting him with a wooded stick, and getting stabbed in the chest by Robito and Marciano, Jr.
Arnold saw the commotion and went to help but was also attacked and stabbed the latter. Arnold
fled for his life. Leonilo rushed from his house towards the commotion where he was attacked by
Robito only. The former was stabbed in his chest before he retreated and asked his uncle for
help. Then Teresito Mondragon arrived and pacified the Caballero brothers stopping the
commotion. Eugene and Leonilo died of their injuries while Arnold would have died if it were
not for the timely medical assistance. (Serious Physical Injuries)
4. The Caballero Brothers were charged with the murder of Eugene and Leonilo, and
frustrated murder for Arnold.
Issues
1. W/N there was a conspiracy between the brothers to kill Eugene?
Disposition
MODIFIED. The Caballero brothers, except Robito (at large), are not liable for the murder of
Leonilo Broce.
Rationale
1. YES. Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself;
however, direct proof is not required. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence
(collective acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony). The overt
act of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of a crime; all the
malefactors had the same purpose, and were united in execution. Moreover, one is not criminally
liable for his act done outside the contemplation of the conspirators.
a. All brothers ambushed and stabbed Eugene. Therefore they are liable for Eugene’s death.
b. When Arnold came to help, Ricardo stabbed him, soon his other brothers joined in.
Therefore they are all liable for Arnold’s Injuries
c. Only Robito stabbed Leonilo, therefore only Robito is liable for Leonilo’s death.
2. The crime was committed with Treachery. Treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on
the unarmed victim. None of the victims were armed, ergo the brothers acted with treachery.
3. The situation with Arnold is a frustrated murder since all the necessary acts were done to
cause the death of Arnold (successfully reached the Objective phase), however, as testified by
the Dr. Quisumbing, if it weren’t for the timely medical intervention, Arnold would have died.
Thus, all the elements to commit the Felony were committed, but the felony was not produced by
reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator.

People v Aguilos GRNo. 121828 (Jake)

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba and Rene Gato Pilola(appellant)
Ponente: Callejo Jr. J

Facts: On Feb. 5, 1988, Joselito Capa and Julian Azul were drinking at the store of Elisa Roldan at Nueve
de Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba arrived at the store. Joselito and
Julian invited them to drink and the two joined. During their conversation, Edmar irritated Julian and the
two had a fistfight. Odilon watched and Joselito tried to serve as peacemaker. Odilon did not like Joselito
interfering the fight and proceeded to take out a knife and stabbed him. Ronnie and Rene (Appellant) saw
what their gang member Odilon did and decided to join in, pulling out their own knives and stabbed
Joselito too. Victim fell to a canal. Ronnie went to stab Julian but the latter was able to run away. Ronnie
went back to Joselito’s body and bashed his head with a piece of hollow block, and struck him with a
broken bottle. Joselito died on the spot - cause of death was multiple stabbed wounds.
Odilon was charged with murder. Edmar is still at large. Ronnie died a month after the incident. Rene was
arrested and pleaded not guilty for the crime.
Rene had an alibi. He said on the time Joselito was killed he was at Julian Cadion;’s house; his cousin,
and that he was suffering from ulcer. Despite this, court still found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Was Elisa a credible witness? YES
Did the court err in finding that there was conspiracy by appellant and others in the killing of Joselito?
NO
Was Rene guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt? YES

Held: Appellant tried to assail that Elisa was not a credible witness since she said Ronnie struck the head
of the victim with a hollow block. However, on cross-examination, she stated that it was Edmar who
struck the victim. Appellant contended that her conflicting testimonies made her not a credible witness.
Court found this wrong stating that the inconsistency of her account of events is a minor and collateral
detail that does not affect the substance of her testimony.

On the issue of conspiracy; there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to
the occurrence, or does not require the person to know the other offenders or the victim. From the legal
standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. (If this is satisfied, meaning co-conspirator, also guilty as
principal)

(As opposed to accomplices - they do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely
agree to the plans of the principal and cooperate in its accomplishment)

In this case, Odilon initially stabbed the victim. Appellant and Ronnie decided for themselves to join in
and stab Joselito too. Joselito died of multiple stabbed wounds, meaning his death was caused by the
overt acts of the 3 men.) Hence this means appellant was not merely an accomplice but was directly liable
as principal/co-conspirator.

His alibi was also overruled. His own cousin testified that the appellant had left and was no longer seen at
Nueve de Pebrero after the incident.

Decision: decision finding appellant guilty of murder was affirmed.

People vs Cruz
G.R. No. 74048
Ponente: Fernan, C.J.
Facts
1. The RTC-Malabon found Rolando Cruz guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua. Hence, this appeal.
2. Jesus Baang, a fisherman was allegedly murdered by Rading Sason, but with Rolando as
his co-conspirator.
3. Multiple eyewitness accounts point to the fact that Rolando was not even present in the
scene of the crime when the crime occurred.
Issues
1. W/N Rolando Cruz is a co-conspirator for the murder of Jesus Baang?
Disposition
Decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Rolando Cruz ACQUITED.
Rationale
1. NO. The eyewitnesses both corroborated their testimonies which made no mention of
Rolando being present during the commission of the crime. The sole reason for the TC ruling
Rolando as a co-conspirator of Sason was because a witness saw the two speaking outside the
house of Aling Jusing (random person, not important) a little bit before the commission of the
crime. The TC gave undue weight to the words “Andiyan na” which was uttered by Rolando to
Sason. The TC erred in ruling this utterance as a conspiracy between the two. In conspiracies, the
cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance which is knowingly or intentionally given
and which is not possible without previous knowledge of criminal purpose. In the case at bar,
there is an absence of conclusive proof indicating a prior plan or agreement between the two.

People vs Carbonel
G.R. No. 24177
16 March 1926
Ponente: Villa-Real, J.

Facts:
This is an appeal taken by Fidel Arrojo, Mamerto de Leon, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano
Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros
convicting them of the crime of murder as principals, the rest by induction, and the second by direct
participation, and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment; and Catalino Matula, Silvino
Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa and Jose Carbonel, of the crime of murder, as accomplices.
On the date of the commission of the crime there existed in the Province of Occidental Negros, two rival
societies, Mainawaon and Kusug Sang Imol, respectively. Eliseo Olmedo was a member of the
Mainawaon and Jose Carbonel, Mamerto de Leon, Fidel Arrojo, Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan,
Susano Gualdrapa and Felipe Gualdrapa, were members of the Kusug Sang Imol. Due to rivalry, they
conspired to killed Eliseo Olmedo. Four days before the crime, Fidel Arrojo was stopped on his way and
then chased by four Mainawaons who tried to catch him, but he succeeded in escaping. In the month of
October, Fidel Arrojo went to the club of the Kusug Sang Imol and told the vice president, Ramon
Larracas, and the secretary, Francisco Gemora, both of the said club, that the Mainawaons of the barrio of
Gosy, headed by Eliseo Olmedo, were after him.

Upon hearing such notice, Ramon Larracas struck the table with his st and said: "Why did you not kill
him? Kill him." Francisco Gemora, also striking the table with his st, seconded the proposition, saying:
"You try to kill him; you must kill him, because if you kill him there, where there are many Mainawaons,
they will become afraid, and if you kill him, do not be afraid because in Bacolod there are good lawyers. I
am a procurador here in Bacolod and our club has a good lawyer in Bacolod."
Morning of December 26, 1924, Fidel Arrojo was telling everybody the following: "To-night, I am going
to kill three Mainawaons; if not F. Bello, then Juan Catalan; if not Juan Catalan, then Eliseo Olmedo." On
the afternoon of the same day, Eliseo Olmedo, Mamerto de Leon, Fidel Arrojo, Jose Carbonel, Catalino
Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Susano Gualdrapa, Felipe Gualdrapa, Santiago Helboligaya, Andres de Leon
and Vicente Genito met in the house of one Basilio Salinas where there was a little celebration of the
birthday of one of the children of the owner of the house. During their stay in the said house and while
drinking tuba and eating some viands, Fidel Arrojo and his coaccused were seen talking in a low voice
and so behaving as to arouse the suspicion of the other guests that something wrong was being planned.
Fidel Arrojo was seen looking intently at Eliseo Olmedo from head to foot. When Andres de Leon asked
him why he looked at Eliseo Olmedo in such a manner, Fidel Arrojo whispered to him in the ear "You
shut up, a lightning will strike that fellow, I am going to kill him." Thereafter, they attacked Eliseo
Olmedo.

The defense of alibi by all accused were all weak and insufficient. Having found beyond all reasonable
doubt that all of the herein accused have cooperated in killing Eliseo Olmedo. All of them to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased, Eliseo Olmedo, and to pay the costs.

Jose Carbonel has not appealed from the judgment, so that it has now become final as to him. The rest
appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not there is conspiracy among the accused? YES

Held:
Having found beyond all reasonable doubt that all of the herein accused have cooperated in killing Eliseo
Olmedo. If it is proven that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment,
a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proven.

The details of the conspiracy need not be proven. If a community of purpose among the parties to do
some criminal act or acts is shown, it is not necessary that the acts which are charged, or of which
evidence has been given, were speci cally contemplated by them or included in the original design
The facts proven at the trial constitute the crime of murder, qualified by the circumstances of known
premeditation and alevosia, as regards Fidel Arrojo and of alevosia as regards the other defendants, each
and everyone of them being criminally responsible as principal, Fidel Arrojo by induction, and all the
others by direct participation

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from, as regards Catalino Matula, Silvino Bulahan, Felipe
Gualdrapa and Susano Gualdrapa, is reversed, and they are held guilty of the crime of murder, as
principals by direct participation, and each of them is sentenced to the penalty of cadena perpetua, said
judgment being affirmed in all other respects, with proportional costs against the appellants and with
credit of one-half of the preventive imprisonment already suffered. So ordered.
People vs Tabuso
People v. Tabuso
GR No. 113708 - 26 October 1999
Ponente: Purisima, J.

Facts:

Jul. 29, 1992 - At around 8:40 pm, Roberto Bugarin was gunned down in an alley in Tondo, Manila.
Renato Datingginoo, a witness, claimed that accused Arquillos Tabuso was the lookout of Arnold
Mendoza who shot Bugarin. Rosalina and Amado Datingginoo also witnessed the shooting and identified
Mendoza to be the one who actually killed Bugarin. All the suspects fled the scene.

Jul. 31, 1992 - Accused claimed to be staying in his house in Caloocan, taking care of his child, when
members of the WPD invited him to the UN Detachment Office and asked him about Mendoza's
whereabouts. Renato Reyes and another woman identified Tabuso to be a relative of Mendoza which
prompted the police to arrest and incarcerate him.

Oct. 22, 1992 - Accused entered a not-guilty plea. Trial ensued.

Aug. 9, 1993 - RTC convicted accused of murder and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua (and ordered
to pay around 64k as damages)

Accused, on appeal, attests that his guilt has not been proven and that the prosecution's witnesses were not
credible.

Issue:
W/N Tabuso's relations with Mendoza constitutes conspiracy to commit the murder? NO.

Held:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement on the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. The elements of conspiracy must also be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In People v. Ortiz - the mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a co-
conspirator.
In People v. Gomez - Assumed intimacy between two persons of itself does not give that much
significance to the existence of criminal conspiracy.
In People v. Alas - to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act is required.

The facts do not show a clear image of how Tabuso was allegedly involved in the shooting.
Datingginoo's testimony that Tabuso was a look-out was only based on the fact that he allegedly heard
Tabuso say "Nandyan na si Dagul (Bugarin)" and the fact that he fled. Upon cross-examination,
Datingginoo was able to physically identify Tabuso but failed to identify the other suspects. This does
not constitute the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His snapshots of his recalling of the events were mere
small pieces of his memory being put together by inferences and assumptions. He did not actually see the
crime unfold and hence cannot 100% identify those involved.

Furthermore, Tabuso has been consistent in his claim that he did not know anything about the killing. He
was only put to jail because the police found out his relation to Mendoza. Mere relationship does not
necessarily make them conspirators without proof.

The look-out claim is highly unlikely because Tabuso is known as 'Bulag' in the community due to his
eye defect.

Without sufficient evidence, the doubt being cast around Tabuso's guilt is enough to prevent the
conviction.

Ruling:
Appealed judgment of conviction is REVERSED. Tabuso is ACQUITTED.

People vs Pilola
FACTS:
While in a drinking session at the store of Elisa Rolan, Julian Azul and Edmar Aguilos got into a
heated argument, which soon turned into a fistfight. The fistfight was broken up by the store owner Elisa,
who asked the men to leave as she was about to close shop. When Joselito Capa and Julian were about to
leave, Edmar and Odilon Lagliba blocked their way. Edmar punched Julian in the face, and the fistfight
resumed. While the fight was ongoing, Odilon positioned himself atop a pile of hollow blocks. Joselito
tried to stop the fight, but in doing so incensed Odilon. Odilon stabbed Joselito with his knife. Ronnie
Diamante (a gangmate of Odilon who died a month after) and herein appellant Rene Pilola (another
gangmate of Odilon), upon seeing Odilon stabbing Joselito, joined the fray. When Joselito fell in a canal,
Odilon and Pilola fled. Ronnie, on the other hand, went after Julian and tried to stop him. When he
escaped Ronnie, Julian looked back and saw Ronnie bashing Joselito’s head with a hollow block and a
piece of broken glass, before fleeing the scene. Joselito died on the spot. An information for murder was
filed against Edmar, Odilon, Rene, and Ronnie. Odilon was convicted of murder, Ronnie died before a
conviction can be carried out, and Edmar remains at large.
In his defense, Pilola used denial and alibi. He stated that at the time of the crime, he was at the
house of his cousin, Julian Cadion. When they heard a commotion, Julian rushed to see what was going
on, while Pilola remained inside as he was suffering from a stomach ulcer. He then learned from Elisa,
the store owner, that Joselito has been stabbed and killed. His testimony was corroborated by Julian
Cadion.
Pilola’s defense failed, and the trial court rendered the decision assailed herein, convicting Pilola
of Murder without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
ISSUES:
- W/N the prosecution witness’s (Elisa Rolan’s) testimony sufficiently established that Pilola
committed murder? (YES)
- W/N the prosecution sufficiently established that Pilola conspired with Ronnie and Odilon in
stabbing Joselito? (YES)
RULING:
- Pilola contested that Elisa’s testimony is not enough to convict him of murder, as Elisa
contradicted herself by saying first that it was Ronnie who struck the victim with the hollow block,
and then saying that it was Edmar who did. However, Elisa’s testimony must stand because:
o Who hit the victim with the hollow block is of minimal importance, for the victim
died of multiple wounds
o Elisa is consistent with her testimony that Pilola is one of the men who stabbed the
victim
o Even Pilola himself could give no reason as to why Elisa might falsely implead him in
this case.
o On Pilola’s alibi: It was sufficiently established by Elisa’s testimony that Pilola fled
from the scene of the crime. Furthermore, he fled from the authorities.
- The prosecution witness sufficiently proved the existence of a conspiracy. A conspiracy must
be proved separately and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself, though not necessarily
with direct evidence. There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not know the identities of the
other offenders. There may not even be an agreement prior to the crime. What is important in
establishing a conspiracy is that one knowingly contributes his effort to further the agenda.
o It was Odilon who initially stabbed Joselito, but Ronnie and Pilola soon joined in.
These overt acts show they conspired to kill the victim, hence, all of them are liable
for the victim’s death.
- The three, Pilola included, are guilty of MURDER, qualified with TREACHERY (in that they
swiftly and unexpectedly attacked Joselito without giving him a chance to defend himself). The other
aggravating circumstance, abuse of superior strength, is absorbed in treachery. Since there is no
mitigating circumstance, the proper punishment is RECLUSION PERPETUA according to Art. 63 of
the Penal Code.