People vs. Ventura and Flores, G.R. No.

148145-46, July 5, 2004;

G.R. Nos. 148145-46 July 5, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
FELIX VENTURA y QUINDOY and ARANTE FLORES y VENTURA, appellants.

FACTS:
This is an AUTOMATIC appeal before the SC for the RTC decision finding appellants GBRD of
Murder and Attempted Murder.
Ventura was the husband of the ex-maid of the victims while Flores was Ventura’s nephew who
worked in the victim’s meat shop.
In the early hours of Feb. 23, 2002, Sps. Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were fast asleep in
their room on the groundfloor of their 2-storey house. Their niece and older daughter were
asleep in their rooms on the second floor. At around 2:00 AM, Jaime woke up from his sleep
when Ventura and Arante stealthily entered the couple’s room after they gained entry into the
house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door. Ventura pointed a revolver at Jaime’s face and
announced a hold-up. Jaime tried to grab the revolver. While struggling for possession of the
gun, Flores stabbed Jaime three times. Meanwhile, Aileen who had been awakened saw her
husband in mortal danger and started shouting for help. Flores stabbed her as well. She was
stabbed in the chest that punctured her lung. The spouses’ niece and daughter were also
awakened and called to their neighbors for help.
Ventura and Flores fled the Bocateja house, bringing nothing with them. The spouses were
brought to the hospital. Aileen died on the same day while Jaime was hospitalized for 6 days.
The appellants were intercepted by members of the Central Investigation Unit of PNP. They
recovered a .38 caliber revolver with (5) live bullets from Ventura, and a blood-stained knife from
Flores.
Shortly after their arrest, appellants were interviews by reporters from Bombo Radio to whom
they admitted responsibility for stabbing the spouses. Ventura explained that he suspected his
wife had an affair with Jaime.
Informations for frustrated murder and murder were filed against them.
RTC found the appellants GBRD of Frustrated murder and Murder. With regard to the murder
case, the RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and by breaking
of a door. The accused are meted the Supreme penalty of Death.

ISSUE/S:
WON the trial court erred in finding them guilty of Murder. (NO)
WON the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, night time
and breaking door. (YES)

HOLDING/RATIO:
Appellants’ argument:
They argue that they should not be guilty of murder because they had no intent to kill.

SC:
That evident premeditation was established through the testimonies of appellants and not by
those of the prosecution witnesses is of no moment. While appellants could not have been
compelled to be witnesses against themselves, they waived this right by voluntarily taking the
witness stand. Consequently, they were subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
their direct examination. Their admissions before the trial court constitute relevant and
competent evidence which the trial court correctly appreciated against them.

Appellants’ argument:
The breaking of a door was not alleged in either of the two informations. Thus, the same cannot
be appreciated against appellants.

SC:
In People v. Albert, the SC ruled that The accused must thence be afforded every opportunity
to present his defense on an aggravating circumstance that would spell the difference
between life and death in order for the Court to properly exercise extreme caution in reviewing
the parties’ evidence. This, the accused can do only if he is appraised of the aggravating
circumstance raising the penalty imposable upon him to death. Such aggravating
circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise the Court cannot appreciate
it.

Consequently, we hold that due to their non-allegation in the Information for rape filed against
accused-appellant, the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling cannot be
considered in raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant from reclusion perpetua to
death.

The judgment in Criminal Case No. 00-20692 is likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants Felix Ventura and Arante Flores are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, dwelling and nighttime and are SENTENCED to the supreme penalty of DEATH.

G.R. Nos. 94376-77 July 11, 1996

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ELMER BELGA y OPINION, defendant-appellant

That on or about May 21, 1984, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring
and confederating with Roberto Olazo y Fajardo, already charged with the same offense under
Criminal Case No. 84-27753, RTC, Manila, Pat. Noel Palada y Santos, also charged with the
same offense before the JAGO, together with others whose true names, identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with intent to kill and with treachery
and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of Raymundo Roque y Lubigan, by then and
there shooting him with a firearm hitting him at the left side of his back and boxing him on the
face thereby inflicting upon the latter physical injuries which are necessarily fatal and mortal
thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of murder, as a
consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will,
that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Raymundo Roque y Lubigan
which saved his life.

Issue: WON there is evident premeditation?

Ruling:

Yes. In any case, while treachery may be absent in both cases, the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation, likewise alleged in the information, has been duly proved by the
prosecution, enough to qualify the wounding of Roque to frustrated murder and the killing of
Arlene Rose to murder.

The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded
by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.32 The following requisites must concur
before evident premeditation may be appreciated: (a) the time when the accused determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

While it would seem that the main target of the malefactors were Alberto and Arlene Rose, this
does not negative the presence of evident premeditation on the physical assault on the person of
Raymundo Roque. We have established jurisprudence to the effect that evident premeditation
may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or
wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only
the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance.35 Here,
Raymundo Roque provided such violent resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no
choice but to eliminate him from their path.