People v.

Escoto

According to the testimony of the witness, Wilfredo and Dominador Escoto was looking for
Alfred Torno at their house. The two acused saw the victim, the brother of Alfred. They chased
the victim and upon catching up, Wilfredo stabbed the victim on the left chest Dominador
likewise stabbed the victim. Dominador held the victim while Wilfredo stabbed him. The father
of the two accused was also present, and he instructed the two to run when they are finished.

There was no information filed against Wilfredo, Raul and Dominador raised alibi and denial as
defense. According to them they were fixing a sofa set at the time that the crime was
committed.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of superior strength should be appreciated against the
accused NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the testimony of the witness was not enough to establish that
the crime was committed in abuse of superior strength, the witness was not able to testify
which part of the body of the victim was being held by the accused. The use of superior
strength of the accused can neither be deduced nor concluded. The mere fact that the victim is
attacked by two aggressors does not constitute this aggravating circumstance if the relative
physical strength of the parties does not appear on record. There must be evidence that the
accused is physically stronger and abused such superiority. A superiority in numbers is not
sufficient to bring the case within the purview of this qualifying or aggravating circumstance.

People v. Appegu

Victim, Rose Binua, left her children at the house of her mother to buy some groceries and get
the remittance of P 450 from her husband. According to the two witnesses, they saw the
accused attacking the victim in a place beside a creek, covered by talahib grass. They saw the
accused hacking the victim a number of times in the head and neck with a bolo, while the other
accused bludgeoned the victim with a cleaved bamboo club. While the two attacked her,
another accused was holding her right hand above the wrist.

The three acused denied the allegation, according to them they were at the house of the
barangay captain to help in harvesting palay from the farm of said captain. Their alibi was
corroborated by the barangay captain.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should be appreciated against
the accused YES
Ratio
The Trial court did not discuss which of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior
strength qualifies the crime to murder. The Court found that abuse of superior strength is
present as the victim is a woman who was attacked by three men armed with dangerous
weapons. The victim was defenseless and there is clear difference between her and the
accused.

People v. Carpio

The accused and the victim were neighbors. There was a dispute between them regarding the
extent of their properties. Some of the trees that was planted by the accused was uprooted by
the victim. The son of the accused was also reported by the victim for being drunk during
curfew hours. There was an instance when the accused challenged the victim to a fight but the
latter refused.

Accused and his cousin was riding in a motorcycle, he left his cousin at a store near the national
highway. While the victim was passing by the store, where the accused left his cousin. Bablis,
the cousin clapped his hands and asked for a ride from the victim.

According to the witness, he saw Bablis holding the hands of the victim at his back while the
two other accused stabbed and punched the victim. The victim was able to free himself
momentarily and he was shot 5 times with a short gun but Bablis missed. The witness was
threatened by the three accused.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of superior strength should be appreciated against the
accused NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that even though two persons attacked the victim, abuse of
suprerior strength is not automatically appreciated. This aggravating circumstance depends on
the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the accused. The superiority in strength should be
taken advantage as a means to purposely use the excessive force out of proportion to the
means of the defense available to the person attacked. In this case, the prosecution failed to
establish that there was inequality between the age, size, and strength between the victim and
the accused.
People v. Villarico

The victim, Haide Cagatan, was busy preparing dinner in the kitchen of his family’s house. The
kitchen had a wall whose upper portion was made of 3 feet high bamboo slats and whose lower
portion was also made of bamboo. Four armed men entered the house and shot Haide. Family
members of Haide were able to witness the shooting, according to them Haide was able to
recognize one of the accused.

The four accused in this case presented their alibis. As a wy to discredit Haide’s identification of
the shooter, the defense presented the driver of habal-habal which state that he asked Haide
who shot him and the victim said he did not know.

RTC did not consider treachery as the victim was able to see who shot him. However, the Court
of appeals stated that the crime was murder as treachery is not dependent on the position of
the victim at the time of the attack.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the essence of treachery is in the mode of the attack not in the
relative position of the victim and the assailant. Requisites for treachery are:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself
2. The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method, or
forms of attack employed
The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves the victim unable to
defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense. Treachery ay still be
appreciated even if the victim was facing the assailant. In this case, the victim was gunned
down while he was preoccupied in the kitchen of his own house, he was unaware of that he is
going to be attacked, and that he was in no position to defend himself.

People v. Torejas

According to the witness, he was hauling palay in the store when he saw the accused stab the
victim. He added that while the victim was lighting a cigarette he was hit on the head with a
bottle after which he was stabbed by the other accused with a bolo. The victim was able to run
away but the accused was able to catch up with him and stab him several more times.

The accused pleaded self-defense, they claimed that it was the victim who attacked with a
Batangas knife.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated the the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be based on
some positive conclusive proof and not merely upon hypothetical facts. In this case, the
eyewitness might have seen the attack but it does not follow that he was likewise in the
position to hear what was uttered by the victim and the accused before the attack. The only
evidence that suggest that the crime was committed with treachery was the location of the
wound, which is in the right underarm. Which corroborates the testimony of the witness that
the victim was placing something in the showcase. However, this is not enough to establish
treachery. Treachery is not to be presumed, but must be proved as conclusively as the act
which it qualifies.
People v. Rellon

The victim in this case was stabbed while watching the Sinulog Festival. According to witness,
the accused suddenly held the shoulder of the victim and stabbed him with a butcher’s knife.
The accused fled after the attack. They shouted for help, but due to the commotion caused by
the festival, they were not heard.

The accused claimed that it was self-defense. According to him, while he was walking towards
his house, the victim suddenly stood up and thrust his knife towards him. He grappled for the
knight and he accidentally stabbed the victim in the right chest.

RTC ruled murder because of the location of the wound which was in the back.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the victim was stabbed from behind while he was watching the
singing and dancing during the Festival. The manner that the crime was committed constitutes
treachery.

People v. Ganohon

The accused was charged of five counts of murder for the death of Anoos Family. The victims
were the mother and the father, their children who were 1 and 6 years old and another child
who was 12 years old. According to the brother of one of the victims, he was told that if
something happens to him and his family, one Gerardo Obod and Recto Obod were the ones
who whould be responsible. The victim was a possible witness for the killing of 3 persons.
According to witnesses, they saw the accused moving towards the house of the victim.
However, there were not eyewitness when the crime was actually committed.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
but not for every victim
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that treachery could not be appreciated for the death of the mother
and the father as there is an absence of proof as to how they were killed. However, for the
death of the children who were 1, 6, and 12 years old, treachery should be appreciated. The
killing of a child is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown. Treachery exist when an
adult person illegally attacks a child of tender age and causes death.

People v. Badon

According to the witness, the victim sought help from him as he was shot by Restituto, because
Restituto thought that the victim was the hired assassin that was going to kill him. The victim
requested that his wounds be treated, he was on the way to the hospital in a pedicab when he
was again attacked by the two accused with a bolo. The victim was able to parry the first stab
but was unsuccessful in the succeeding stabs. The victim disembarked the pedicab and ran but
he was shot with a .38 caliber pistol. When he fell to the ground, he was hacked and stabbed
by the two accused with a bolo.

According to the defense it was the victim who fired the shots after being chased by a dog. The
victim and the accused wrestled for the gun which accidentally fired 2 times and hit the victim
in the chest. The victim went home to get more bullets and the accused prepared himself with
spear, a stone, and a bolo. According to him it was Demeterio, the witness, who stabbed Edwin
with a bolo.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery. However,
treachery is not present at the case at hand. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present
at the inception of the attack, and absent if the attack is continuous , even if present at the
subsequent stage, it is not to be considered. In this case, the victim could not be oblivious of
the danger as he was able to parry the first thrust of bolo. There is no treachery when the
victim is hit while defending himself.

People v. Fuertes

In this case, two boys aged 12 and 16 were killed. According to the state witness, the two boys
were caught stealing young coconuts at the Hacienda Ong. The two were able to escape when
they were caught, but the man who managed the hacienda ordered that the two boys be taken
the second time they are seen in the Hacienda. Upon seeing the boys the second time, the
accused took them to the quarters of the manager of the Hacienda. The manager decided that
the two boys be killed. They took the boys in the “dead creek’, their clothes were removed and
was used as a gag, their hands was also tied. The accused boloed the two boys one by one.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the means, method, and form of execution employed gave the
victim no opportunity to defend themselves. This means was deliberately adopted by the
accused to ensure that they themselves would not be endangered. The victims’ hands were tied
and they were gagged in the mouth, before the accused took turns in hacking them with bolo.

People v. Caringal

The victim in this case was stabbed while he was asleep inside a market stall owned by Aling
Liwayway. According to the witness, she was looking for medicine for her rheumatism, when
she suddenly noticed a commotion in the market stall of Aling Liwayway. He saw the accused
stab the victim with a kitchen knife while five other held down the victim.

According to the defense, he was fast asleep at the time that the crime was committed.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that treachery is present when the victim is stabbed while he was
asleep. At the time of the attack, the victim cannot possibly defend himself against the accused.
Absorbed in treachery are nocturnity and superior strength.

People v. Trinidad

The evidence of the prosecution tried to establish that one evening, the victim was asleep by
the balcony of her house. With her was her son and daughter-in-law, and 2 grandchildren.
Suddenly a gunshot was heard, they saw the accused ran away from their house. That was
when they saw that the victim was hit in her neck which caused her death. One of the accused
stated that he offered to pay P 500 to the other accused to kill the son of the victim, not the
victim.

Issue
WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery as
evidenced by the fact that the victim was shot at close range while she was asleep, thus
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants. Even though the victim was
not who they intended to kill, treachery should still be appreciated. Evident premeditation
cannot be sustained as the victim was not who they supposed to kill.