PEOPLE vs.

BAUTISTA (OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS)

Facts:
Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin who are serving sentence by virtue of final judgment, in the
New Bilibid Prison were accused of Murder, they allegedly unlawfully assault one Basilio Beltran,
another convicted prisoner who is serving his final sentence in the same institution. The attacked
happened while the victim serving the accused breakfast, the accuseds inflicted multiple stab wounds
while the Beltrtan was unarmed and unable to defend himself from the attack launched by the
accused, as a result Beltran instantly died.

Issue:
Is there an aggravating circumstance of obvious ungratefulness?

Ruling:
Yes. The aggravating circumstance of obvious ungratefulness was present as the victim
was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the assailants their bread and coffee for
breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at least by doing him no harm, they
took advantage of his helplessness when his two arms were used for carrying their food,
thus preventing him from defending himself from the sudden attack.

PEOPLE vs. DUCUSIN (MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE)

Facts:
In this case, Cesareo Tadefa was killed by the second cousin of his wife, Mariano Ducusin. Upon
discovering the body of the victim his wife Teodora Vergara suspected Ducisin for the death of her
husband of his threats after their previous conversation. The two of them has a relationship, despite
being related and Vergara having a husband.

The police took Ducusin from his house, because he is the primary suspect for the death of Cesareo
Tadefa, as the was being found near his house.

Ducusin confessed to the chief of police that he killed Tadefa. The accused, admitted that he is the
cause of the death of the victim during the preliminary investigation, however, he pleaded not guilty.

The accused confessed that he intoxicated the victim. He bought a cognac and ask the victim to
share the said alcohol with him, he waited for the victim to get intoxicated and strangled him to
death.

Issue:
Whether intoxicating the victim is a means employed to weaken the defense which arised to
aggravating circumstances.

Ruling:
In the commission of the crime, the circumstance of evident premeditation, qualifying the crime as
murder, must be considered, because, according to his own confession, the defendant three times
attempted to take the life of Tadefa in order to marry his widow, with whom he was in love,
purchasing cognac in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. The aggravating circumstance
defined in Article 10, No. 9 of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken the
defense, consisting in this case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be taken into
account. This act cannot be juridically considered to give rise to the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, because, in order that this circumstance may really exist, it is necessary that the means
employed should directly and especially insure the execution of a crime against persons, without the
risk to the perpetrator arising from the defense which the offended party may take. The defendant's
confession does not furnish sufficient data as to the state of intoxication of the deceased at the
moment of strangulation, and the fact that he could not articulate is not sufficient enough to
determine whether, in his intoxicated state at that time, it was impossible for him to put up any sort
of resistance.

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is likewise to be taken into account, inasmuch as
the crime was committed in an isolated and unfrequented place overgrown with weeds.

There is no extenuating circumstance that can be taken into account in favor of the criminal.

Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that the defendant and appellant is guilty of the crime of
murder defined and penalized in Art. 403 of the Penal Code, the penalty fixed by law ranging
from cadena temporal in its maximum degree to death. Considering the aggravating circumstances
that were present in the commission of the crime, with no extenuating circumstance to offset them,
the death penalty should legally be imposed upon the defendant; but for lack of unanimity in vote as
to the propriety of imposing the death penalty, in accordance with sec. 1 paragraph 2 of Act No.
3104, said penalty cannot be imposed, and the one next lower in degree, that is, life imprisonment,
must be imposed in conformity with the provisions of sec. 2 of Act No. 2726.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR MEANS EMPLOYED TO

TREACHERY
Means, methods, or forms
employed by the offender
to make it impossible or
hard for the offended party
to put any sort of
resistance.
STRENGHT WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
Offender only takes Means are employed but it
advantage of his superior materially weakens the
strength and does not resisting power of the
employ means, methods, offended party.
or forms of attack.

Notes: Treachery means that the offended party was not given opportunity to make a defense.

Requisites of Treachery:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
2. The offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by
him.

US vs. REGUERA (LOW DEGREE OR LACK OF INSTRUCTION IS MITIGATING IS ALMOST ALL

CRIMES)

Facts:

In this case barrios Lieutenant Basilio Reguera and Lieutenant Alejandro Asuategui were found guilty
of robbery with double homicide by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo. They entered
the house of the victims, robbed money and jewelries and even asked fthe son-in-law of Pasaporte to
give them PhP200 in exchange for the safety of the victims.

Issue:

Is there

Ruling:

We agree with the Attorney-General in that in the present case the mitigating circumstance of
lack of instruction and education should not be considered because the accused were
barrio lieutenant, a position which implies that they are cognizant of their duties with respect to
the protection of persons and properties.

In the case of U.S. vs. Fortaleza (12 Phil., 472), this court, among other things, said:

Taking into consideration, the fact that under the municipal system which was superseded by
the system provided in this Act, municipal councilors and their lieutenants placed in charge of
particular barrios were always recognized as agentes de la autoridad  and clothed with the
necessary authority for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property; we
think that the Commission, in providing for the assignment of one or more councilors in charge
of each barrio or part of barrio, so that each barrio shall be under the direction of one or more
councilors, must be taken to have entrusted to these councilors and their lieutenants a duty of
maintaining order within their respective barrios, substantially similar to that which was
imposed upon municipal councilors under the Spanish law existing at the time of the
promulgation of the Act No. 82, and thus to have conferred upon, or confirmed to them the
functions of agentes de la autoridad  (agents of authority) within their respective barrios, with
the necessary authority incident thereto for the maintenance of order and the protection of life
and property.

That the robbery in question took place out of the jurisdiction of the barrios of which the accused
are lieutenants, does not divest them of the knowledge that they acted in violation of
their duties, for which reason they cannot be considered as lacking in education and
instruction within the meaning of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No.
2142. But even considering in favor of the accused the presence of said special mitigating
circumstance of article 11, equitatively weighing the moral importance of said special mitigating
circumstance and the aggravating circumstances of the commission of the robbery in the dwelling
place of the deceased Josefa Pasaporte, and of the homicide upon her in disregard of her age and
sec, and of the alevosia  present in the homicide committed against the child Corazon Guangco, we
do not believe that the first of said circumstances should have such force as to completely destroy
the effects of all the others; so that, compensating it with one or two of the aggravating
circumstances mentioned, in view of the penalty imposed in No. 1, of article 503, of the Penal Code,
it is proper in any event to imposed upon said accused the maximum penalty fixed by law, in view of
the number of aggravating circumstances, one of which, that of alevosia, is no longer susceptible of
being compensated because of the absence of other mitigating circumstances.