Name: Margie Ann Molina

Section Code: PCBET-01-401P

Subject: BL2 – Law on Partnership and Corporation
Day & Time: TF 7:30AM-9:00AM
Course & Year: 2nd year BS Accountancy
Activity: CASE 1
Date of Submission: February 20, 2022
Instructor: Mr. James Patrick Almocera

1. Title
People of the Philippines vs. DIONISIO CALONGE y VERANA
2. General Registered Number
G.R. No. 182793
3. Promulgation Date
July 5, 2010
4. Date of the Event (crime/offense committed)
December 1, 2001
5. Kind of Session
Third Division
6. Ponente of the Case
Villarama, Jr., J.
7. Nature of the Petition
Petition for review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals
8. Nature of the Case
Crime against Parricide
9. Specific field under Criminal Law
?
10. Venue of the Case
Barangay Cabuluan, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya.
11. Jurisdiction of the Case
Supreme Court
12. Court with Original jurisdiction
Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27
13. Judgment of all courts (from lower to higher courts)
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to death penalty
COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment but modified the death penalty by
reducing it to reclusion perpetua
SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
14. Facts of the Case (present the major parties involved in the case filed)
Rosita A. Calonge was the appellant's legitimate wife, with whom he had three
children. On December 1, 2001 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, the Villaverde
Police Station received a radio call from the barangay captain of Cabuluan that a
massacre took place in their locality. Rosita’s bloodied body was found lying on the
ground about fifteen (15) meters away from their house.  Her right hand was loosely
clasping a knife.  Lying on his back near the stairs was an appellant who was also
wounded but still conscious.  Beside him were a bolo and a flashlight, both stained with
blood.   While the windows of the house were locked with a piece of tie wire, the door
was already opened.  Inside the two “bedrooms” of the house separated only by a
curtain, they found the lifeless bodies of the two young girls, Kimberly and Dony Rose.
The other child, Melody, was also bloodied but alive and conscious. They brought
Melody to the Veterans Regional Hospital where she was treated and confined for
seventeen days. Melody’s grandparents said they knew it was appellant because they
had heard Rosita shouting that appellant would kill them.  On the other hand, when the
appellant was asked what happened and who attacked him, he answered he did not
know. Appellant was charged with parricide and frustrated parricide.  

15. Legal terms (give at least 3 terms and their operational definition)
1. Beyond reasonable doubt 
  The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal
prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts
except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the
presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
2. Treachery 
the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the
crime against persons which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
3. Reclusion Perpetua 
also known as “permanent imprisonment,” is a crime sentence similar to
life imprisonment. It is used in the Philippines. A person sentenced to reclusion
Perpetua must serve a jail term of at least 30 years and face additional penalties.
16. Issue/s of the case
1. whether  the accused is guilty of the crime charged
17. The principle and decision formulated by the Supreme Court

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by
the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate
spouse of accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with
the victim. All the elements of the crime were clearly and sufficiently proved by the
prosecution.

Even granting arguendo that Melody did not see the actual stabbing of her
mother and two (2) sisters, the attendant circumstances point to no one else but the
appellant as the perpetrator. Direct evidence of the actual killing is not indispensable for
convicting an accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt.
The oft-repeated rule has been that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction if
there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived
have been proven and the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. While no general rule can be laid down as to the
quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a given case, all the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of
guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others,
is the guilty person.

In the killing of victims in this case, the trial court was correct in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the attack is so sudden
and unexpected that the victim had no opportunity either to avert the attack or to defend
himself. Indeed, nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than when a father stabs
to death his two young daughters while they were sound asleep and totally defenseless.

18. The judgment of the Supreme Court

The Court AFFIRMED the Decision dated November 29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01516.

19. Legal basis in the case (such as general and special laws)
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7659, the penalty for parricide is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties,
reclusion perpetua to death.

ART. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide. – The courts, in
view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime
of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a
penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the provisions of
Article 50.

SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or

whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act,  shall not
be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.

20. Your Legal and Personal Opinion/Comment relative to the Case

Yes, I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Despite her answers not
being as detailed as would be hoped, given her age and the difficulties of translating the
questions to her in the Ifugao dialect, the Court of Appeal did not err in finding the
survivor's evidence clear and unequivocal. Her account of the incident was corroborated
by the physical evidence, particularly the findings of the doctors regarding the victims'
injuries and causes of death as a result of appellant's carnage on their family.

Furthermore, when I tried to examine the situation, I was suspicious from the
moment the accused indicated that he fell asleep, but that when he awoke the next
morning, he was no longer in their home but in a hospital. The appellant claimed that it
was only then that he recognized he had been stabbed in the chest and neck. I
understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but based on the accused's
statement and the evidence presented in the courts and by specialists, I was persuaded
that he was guilty of the crime even before reading the verdict.