PEOPLE VS JUGUETA

GR NO. 202124

DIGESTED BY: GULA

TOPIC: WHO BRIGANDS ARE

FACTS:

 The family of Norberto Divina were all lying down side by side about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at
around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, when suddenly their wall made of sack was stripped off by
appellant and his companions.
 They ordered him to go out of their house and when he refused despite his plea for mercy, they
fired at them successively and indiscriminately, having hit and killed his two daughters, Mary
Grace Divina and Claudine who were 13 years old and 3 ½ years old respectively.
 In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, appellant was charged with Double Murder, defined and penalized
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
 In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel, was
charged with Multiple Attempted Murder.
 However, based on the sworn statement of one Danilo Fajarillo, the Provincial Prosecutor found
no prima facie case against Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel.
 Appellant was then convicted by the trial court of Double Murder and Multiple Attempted
Murder.
 Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgments, appellant appealed to the CA, which rendered a
Decision affirming appellant’s conviction for the crimes charged.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant is guilty of the crimes charged? (YES)

HELD:

 Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a
person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as treachery or
evident premeditation.
 The trial court correctly ruled that appellant is liable for murder because treachery attended the
killing of Norberto’s two children.
 Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense.
When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.
 As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised
Penal Code states that a felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
 produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
 In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the intent to kill on the part of appellant as
shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered during, as well as the manner of, the
commission of the crime.
 The Court quoted with approval the trial court’s finding that appellant is liable for attempted
murder.