JAY-AR L CARATIQUIT

People vs Glino
G.R. No. 173793 December 4, 2007 (Conspiracy, Treachery)

FACTS:
On November 15, 1998, around 7:20 pm, in Moonwalk, Las Pinas City, Domingo Boji and his wife
Virginia hailed a passenger jeepney bound for Alabang-Zapote Road. The couple sat on two remaining
seats on opposing rows of the jeepney.
Moments later, the woman seated next to Virginia alighted. Accused-appellant Conrado Glino
took her place. He was reeking of liquor. As the jeepney ran its normal route, Virginia noticed accused-
appellant inching closer to her. His head eventually found its way on Virginia's shoulder. Irked, Virginia
sought accused-appellant's attention and asked him to sit properly, citing adequate space. Accused-
appellant angrily replied, "Oh, kung ayaw mong may katabi, bumaba ka, at magtaxi ka!" Virginia decided
to ignore his snide remarks. She then turned her back on him.
When the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, the accused-appellant blocked Virginia’s path
while his co-accused Baloes, who died later in the prison, stabbed Domingo several times which resulted
in Domingo’s death. After the incident, accused-appellant denies knowing Baloes.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy.

HELD:
Yes. Even assuming, for the nonce, that it was Marvin Baloes who inflicted the fatal stab, accused-
appellant cannot escape culpability. Their obvious conspiracy is borne by the records. There is conspiracy
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence. It must be shown to
exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself (Neither joint nor
simultaneous act per se is sufficient proof of conspiracy). Also, in conspiracy, who actually killed the victim
is immaterial. The act of one is the act of all. Hence, it is not necessary that all participants deliver the fatal
blow. In this case, the acts of Baloes and Glino before, during, and after the killing of Domingo indicate
joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiment. Virginia narrated that while Baloes was
stabbing Domingo, Glino blocked her path and prevented her from helping. He later joined Baloes in
stabbing Domingo. Hence, Glino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
 JAY-AR L CARATIQUIT

People vs Baldogo
G.R. No. 128106 January 24, 2003 (Quasi-Recividism)

FACTS:
On or about February 22, 1996, in the evening at the residence of Mr. Julio Camacho of Iwahig
Prison and Penal Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused who were both convicted by final judgment of the offense of Homicide and while
already serving sentence, committed the above name offense by conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and while
armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack one
JORGE CAMACHO, hitting him and inflicting upon him mortal wounds at the different parts of his body,
which was the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.
Another offense is kidnapping of JULIE CAMACHO, a girl 12 years of age, and brought her to the
mountains, where said Julie Camacho was detained and deprived her liberty for more than five days,
contrary to law and attended by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Upon arraignment, the
accused Baldogo pleaded not guilty. Bermas on the other hand died before he could be arraigned.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused is guilty of Murder.

RULING:
Yes. The Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty of murder but it does not agree with the
rulings of the trial court that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of
the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time
between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.
The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, like any other qualifying
circumstance, must be proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot
be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to
the time that he actually commits it.45 The prosecution must adduce clear and convincing evidence as to
when and how the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected.46 The prosecution is
burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination
to commit the crime. The law does not prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon
has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be resolved on the basis
of the extant factual milieu.
 JAY-AR L CARATIQUIT

People vs Real
G.R. No. 93436 March 24, 1995 (Recidivism)

FACTS:
That on or about March 11, 1978, in the morning thereof, at the Poblacion of the Municipality of
Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused with intent
to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
criminally attack, assault and hack with a sharp bolo one Edgardo Corpuz y Rapsing, hitting the latter on
the nape, causing an injury which caused the death of the said Edgardo Corpuz y Rapsing several days
thereafter.
That the accused is a recidivist having been convicted by the Municipal Court of Aroroy, in the
following:

Crime Date of Conviction

1. Ill treatment by Deed — July 6, 1965
2. Grave Threats — November 25, 1968

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is entitled to two mitigating circumstances: namely, vindication of
grave offense and passion and obfuscation.

RULING:
No. The peculiarity of these two mitigating circumstances is that they cannot be applied at the
same time if they arise from the same facts or motive.
In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[g]).
In reiteration, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty (Revised Penal
Code, Art. 14[10]). Unlike in reincidencia, the offender in reiteration commits a crime different in kind
from that for which he was previously tried and convicted (Guevarra, Penal Sciences and Philippine
Criminal Law 129 [1974]).
Appellant is convicted of homicide, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, which is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
The judgment of the trial court was the appellant is convicted of the crime of homicide and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN
(17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity to be paid to the
heirs of the victim is increased to P50,000.00.
 JAY-AR L CARATIQUIT

People vs. Villanueva

G.R. No. 226475, March 13, 2017 (Abuse of Superior Strength)

FACTS:
On January 1, 2012, at around past 5:00 a.m., in Summitville, Barangay Putatan, Muntinlupa City
the accused-appellants and Valencia simultaneously attacked Enrico. Villanueva punched Enrico on the
face twice while Sayson hit the latter at the back of the head with a stone wrapped in a t-shirt. Valencia
then stabbed Enrico on the left side of his armpit twice. Enrico was brought to the Muntinlupa Medical
Center, but he was declared dead on arrival.
The RTC held that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants and Valencia. In convicting
them of the crime of murder, the RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength considering that Enrico was all alone when he was attacked by the accused-appellants and
Valencia.
The CA rendered the herein assailed decision affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants
for the crime of murder rendered by the RTC in its Decision dated September 16, 2014.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision dated September 16, 2014, which found the
accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

RULING:
Following are the essential elements that must be present in order to warrant a conviction for
the crime of murder: 1. That a person was killed; 2. That the accused killed him or her; 3. That the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and 4. That the
killing is not parricide or infanticide. One of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, which qualities
the killing of the victim to murder is abuse of superior strength.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to present evidence to show a relative disparity in age,
size, strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them armed with a knife,
attacked the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, is not per se indicative
of abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers does not indicate the presence of this
circumstance. Nor can the circumstance be inferred solely from the victim's possibly weaker physical
constitution. In fact, what the evidence shows in this case is a victim who is taller than the assailants and
who was even able to deliver retaliatory fist blows against the knife-wielder.
Accordingly, the Court is compelled to disregard the finding of the existence of abuse of superior
strength by the lower courts. The accused-appellants' guilt is, thus, limited to the crime of homicide.
 JAY-AR L CARATIQUIT

People vs. Macaspac

G.R. No. 198954 February 22, 2017 (Evident Premeditation)

FACTS:
On July 7, 1988, at around 8:00 in the evening, Macaspac and Jebulan were out drinking along
with others when they had an argument that soon became heated, causing the former to leave the group
with the warning that he would be back and uttered “Hintayin n’yo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo” shortly
thereafter, Macaspac returned to the group wielding the knife, immediately confronted and directly
taunted Jebulan “Ano?” Jebulan simply replied “Tama na” and quickly stabbed the latter on the chest,
and then fled. The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
RTC found Macaspac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
conviction but modified the civil liability by imposing civil indemnity.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Macaspac’s conviction for murder on the ground that
the Prosecution did not establish his guild for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
The Court sees no misreading by the RTC and CA of the credibility of the witnesses and evidence
of the parties.The CA rejected his claim of self-defense by highlighting the fact that Jebulan had not
engaged in any unlawful aggression against him. Instead, the CA observed that Jebulan was already
running away from the scene when Macaspac stabbed him.
Nonetheless, the information also alleged the attendance of evident premeditation. The
requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the accused determined
to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to
commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.22
The qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be satisfactorily established only if it could be
proved that the defendant had ample and sufficient time to allow his conscience to overcome the
determination of his will, if he had so desired, after meditation and reflection, following his plan to commit
the crime