PEOPLE v.

TUBONGBANUA
1. RTC- Death
2. CA-
 Evident Premeditation was adequately established which qualified the killing the murder
 Abuse of Superior Strength
3. SC
 Qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present
 In the instant case, there is no proof on how the attack was commenced. Where no
particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act
which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it can in no way be
established from mere suppositions that the killing was perpetrated by treachery
 ✔ Evident Premeditation
i. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by
cool thought and reflections upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment

 ✔ Taking advantage of superior strength

i. Apellant likewise took advantage of his superior strength to perpetuate the
criminal act. He killed Atty. Sua-Kho by overpowering her and driving the
murder weapon into her body several times, despite her attempts to parry the
blows. He could not have executed the dastardly act without employing physical
superiority over the victim
 ✔ Dwellling
 Disragard to age, sec,
 owever, it was not convincingly shown that appellant deliberately intended to offend or disregard
the respect due to rank, age, or sex of Atty. Sua-Kho. The motive for the murder was his grudge
against the victim and not because she was a lawyer and his employer. Neither did appellant took
into consideration the age of Atty. Sua-Kho and the fact that she is a woman when he killed her.
 𝙓
o It was not convincingly shown The motive for t

PEOPLE v. GONZALES
1. Inocencio Gonzales JR
 Murder –death of Feliber Angeles (wife)
 Double Frustrated Murder
 Attempted Murder (husband)
2. FACTS:
 Along the Garden of Remambrance at Loyal Memorial Park in Marikina, the trial court
found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of frustrated
murder
 Both the families of the private complainant Noel Andres and that of the accused-
appellant Inocencio Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park.
 The appellant was driving a white Isuzu Esteem with his grandson and three housemaids,
while the private complainant was driving a maroon Toyota FX with his pregnant wife
Feliber Andres, his two year old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law,
Francar Valdez.
 At the intersection near the Garden of Remembrance, while the accused-appellant
Gonzalez was turning left towards the exit and the complainant Noel Andres was headed
straight along the road to the exit their two vehicles almost collided. Noel Andres was
 able to timely step on the brakes. The appellant continued driving along his way while
Noel Andres drove behind the appellant's vehicle for some time and cut him off
when he found the opportunity to do so. 1 Noel Andres then got out of his vehicle and
knocked on the appellant's car window. 2 This is as far as their versions of the incident
coincide.

3. Aggravating Circumstance
 Treachery
 Questions DFM – no intent to kill – SPI only
4. RTC Treacheyr, complex crime of murder and frustrated murder
5. SC said:
 NO TREACHERY; homicide not murder
6. The encounter between Noel Andres and the appellant was a chance encounter. They were total
strangers before their vehicles almost collided at an intersection inside the memorial park.
Unfortunately, heated exchange of remarks that followed the near collision was fanned by a short
temper, which in the case of the appellant, was augmented by the improvident use of a firearm

 Only a chance encounter
 Generally, chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the
moment or those that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by
treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous
mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the accused due to his infuriation by
reason of the victim's provocation was held to be without treachery.
 Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the victim or acts
taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or aggressive behavior of the victim
were held to be without treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarned of
reprisal. For the rules on treachery to apply, the sudden attack must have been
preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the
part of the latter.
 Use of gun
 Not directed to anyone
 Far from behind thevicim
 MC
i. No voluntary surrender
ii. Passion and obfuscation
iii. Incomplete defense of relative
iv. Lackif intent to commit so grave a wrong

PEOPLE v. TOLENTINO
Wilfredo Tolentino and Jonathan Fabros were charged with the crime of murder. After trial, the court a
quo observed that the overt and positive acts of Fabros manifested his approval of the killing and the
concurrence of his acts with those of the other accused.

 RTC finds him guilty of murder and

 AC of ASS and Swelling
FACTS:

- Sheila Guilayan and Merwin Ledesma, were at their house in Luyahan, Pasonanca, Zamboanga
City when their neighbor Wilfredo Tolentino called them. When asked what was it all about,
Wilfredo simply motioned them to come to his house located just across the road. Once they were
inside the house, Wilfredo immediately revealed his plan to kill Hernan Sagario, Sheila's
stepfather. Wilfredo explained that it was the only way to free Sheila's mother — appellant's aunt
— of the sufferings being caused by Hernan.
- Wilfredo then instructed Merwin to go back to the house and get the bolo of H

HELD:

 Nothing in the testimony conveyed a coordinated action, concerted purpose or community of

design to commit the criminal act. Tolentino's plan to kill the victim was concocted in the absence
of appellant. The latter's participation was made when the decision to kill was already a fait
accompli. In fact, appellant, showing clearly his lack of support for the criminal intent of
Tolentino, even tried to prevent the latter from hacking the victim, according to the eyewitness.
Indeed, the trial court based its nding of conspiracy on mere presumptions, not on solid facts
indubitably indicating a common design to commit murder. Such suppositions did not constitute
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, appellant was acquitted
4.