PEOPLE v. PEDRO BORJA, GR No.

L-22947, 1979-07-12

Facts:

In Criminal Case No. 2590, the Court, fully convinced that Pedro Borja, Pedro Fustigo, Inocencio Demen,
Rufino Pavia, Felipe Benavides and Dominador de los Santos, are guilty beyond the peradventure of
reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder, as principals, hereby sentences each of them to
undergo imprisonment ranging from six (6) years, one (1) month, and eleven (11) days of prision mayor,
as... the minimum, to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum; to suffer inherent accessory penalties; to indemnify the offended party,
Salutiano Isorena, in the sum of P5,000.00, as moral and exemplary damages, severally and jointly, but
not to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, by reason of the nature of the penalty
imposed; and to pay the costs of this proceeding on equal basis.

In Criminal Case No. 2578, the Court after having been convinced beyond the realm of reasonable doubt
of the guilt of Pedro Borja, Pedro Fustigo, Inocencio Demen, Rufino Pavia, Felipe

Benavides and Dominador de los Santos, of the crime of murder, as principals, deeply hurting as it is,
hereby sentences each of them to the maximum penalty of death; to suffer inherent accessory
penalties; to indemnify the offended parties, Mercedes Chuidian Vda. de Gancayco and her children in
the sum of P6,000.00 for the death of Santiago Gancayco, Jr., as a matter of law and practice, and
another amount in the sum of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, both severally and jointly,
but not to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, by reason of the nature of the penalty
imposed; and to pay the costs of this proceeding on equal basis.

Issues:

The defense argues that the circumstance of band and aid of armed men, cannot be taken separately
from the circumstance of use of means to weaken the defense, and advantage of superior strength.

Lastly, Borja contended that, assuming he is criminally liable, the trial court erred in not according him
the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Ruling:

in that province. Capt. Farol also declared that a prize of P2,000.00 was put on Borja's head for being a
dangerous fugitive.

These are not indicia of the personality seeking voluntary surrender.

Mr. Santiago Gancayco, Jr., manager of a 1,700-hectare hacienda and scion of a prominent family, is
dead. His demise when he was only in his early thirties was rendered more tragic in that he breathed his
last in the bosom of his grieving... family, consisting of his wife and six small children, in the course of his
flight from ostensible visitors who had suddenly been transformed into cold-blooded killers. Dr. Rizalino
Reyes, Chief of the Medico-Legal Division of the National Bureau of Investigation who performed an
autopsy on the body of Santiago Gancayco, Jr. testified that his death was due to hemorrhage, severe,
secondary to multiple gunshot wounds of the body and that shock, traumatic was contributory. It was
abundantly established in the trial court that his killing was attended by treachery, which qualifies the
crime committed by the perpetrators into murder.

Five of the accused, namely: Pedro Fustigo, Inocencio Demen, Rufino Pavia, Felipe Benavides and
Dominador de los Santos have been in custody since December 19, 1958, or shortly thereafter; while
Pedro Borja was apprehended on February 27, 1959. It can thus be seen that all of them have been
under detention for over twenty years.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court in Criminal Case No. 2590 is hereby affirmed in toto; that
in Criminal Case No. 2578 is modified in respect of the principal penalty from death to reclusion
perpetua for lack of necessary votes, and in respect of the civil indemnity from P6,000 to P12,000.00.

Facts:

Alfredo Corigal was fatally stabbed on February 19, 1972.Rodolfo Corigal testified that he witnessed his
cousin, AlfredoCorigal, being attacked with bolos by two men he identified asappellants Romulo Palencia
and Nestor Nolloda, while he was atwork. He testified that Romulo was the one who initially attackedthe
victim with a long bolo, followed by Nestor, who attacked thevictim with a similar bolo. In their sworn
statements, Jose Palizaand Paterno Noga testified that they went to Tumpa, Camalig,Albay, to get some
vegetables, and that when they arrived atAmado Nierva's abaca plantation, they witnessed
RomuloPalencia hack a man 11 times near the cottageran. Followingthat, Romulo confronted them and
threatened to hack them ifthey did not attack the victim; as a result of his threats, JosePaliza got a small
knife and injured the victim on the leftshoulder, while Paterno Noga hacked the same victim on thearm,
and both of them escaped.
People v. Fernando

G.R. No. L-24781| May 29, 1970TEEHANKEE, J.

DOCTRINE:

Where the killing was inspired by personal motives of avenging the alleged killingof a relative of a Huk
commander and the victim was not connected with the government at thetime, the killing cannot be
deemed absorbed by the rebellion even if the accused is a member ofthe Hukbalahap organization.

FACTS:

This is case is an appeal from the sentence of

reclusion perpetua

imposed by the trialcourt on the accused-appellant for the crime of murder.The accused was charged
with the crime of murder before the CFI of Tarlac under the followinginformation:That on or about
March 30, 1961, Carlos Fernando alias "Bob," together with Francisco Ronquilloalias Commander
"Manly," (Deceased) and Mario Salonga (at large), confederating, conspiringand helping one another,
with malice aforethought and the deliberate intent to take the life ofBienvenido Laxamana, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherouslyattack the latter with pistols caliber 45, thereby
inflicting upon the said Bienvenido Laxamana,mortal wounds on different parts of his body which
directly caused his instantaneous death.Fernando and Salonga were members of the Hukbalahap
Organization. Before going to Bamban,Tarlac, on the evening of the incident, they were somewhere
within the jurisdiction of AngelesCity where they received instruction from one of their commanders,
Francisco Ronquillo aliasCommander Manly,' to liquidate Laxamana. The motive was that Laxamana, an
officer of thecivilian guards, had ordered the killing of a relative of Commander "Manly" and the beating
up ofthe father of Salonga.The appellant contends that because he and Salonga as members of the
Hukbalahap organization,had received from Commander Manly the order to liquidate the victim, the
murder committed bythem should have been held in furtherance of and absorbed by the crime of
rebellion, and that theyshould have been instead charged for rebellion.

ISSUE:

W/N the appellant should be charged for rebellion

NO

HELD:
 The record is bereft of any evidence that the murder was committed as a necessary meansto commit
rebellion or in furtherance thereof. The victim had no established connection with thegovernment at the
time.As emphasized in

People vs. Paz

besides, "That the killing was in pursuance of the Huk rebellionis a matter of mitigation or defense that
the accused has the burden of proving clearly andsatisfactorily." Far from discharging the burden,
appellant himself revealed in his unrepudiatedwritten confessions that the killing was inspired by
personal motives of avenging the allegedkilling of a relative of Commander Manly and the alleged
maltreatment of Salonga's father, as