[G.R. No. L-52688. October 17, 1980.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

HONORATO AMBAL,accused-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance.

Facts:

Felicula (Feling) Ambal – victim, killed by Felicula Ambal

Honorato Ambal – defendant/accused for killing (using bolo) his wife Felicula Ambal; raising the defense
of insanity (see defendant claim)

In the morning of January 20, 1977, the barangay captain found under some flowering plants near the
house of Honorato Ambal, Felicula Vicente-Ambal, 48, mortally wounded. She sustained seven incised
wounds in different parts of her body. She was placed in an improvised hammock and brought to the
hospital where she died forty minutes after arrival thereat.

Ambal took a pedicab, went to the municipal hall and surrendered to a policeman, also confessing to the
latter that he had liquidated his wife. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, accused's
counselde oficio manifested that the defense of Ambal was insanity.

But he admitted that he knew that his wife was dead because he was informed of her death. During his
confinement in jail he mopped the floor and cooked food for his fellow prisoners. Sometimes, he worked
in the town plaza or was sent unescorted to buy food in the market.

Doctor Cresogono Llacuna, a 1937 medical graduate who undertook a two-month observation of mental
cases and who in the course of his long practice had treated around one hundred cases of mental
disorders, attended to Ambal in 1975. He found that Ambal suffered from a minor psycho-neurosis, a
disturbance of the functional nervous system which is not insanity. The doctor concluded that Ambal was
not insane. Ambal was normal but nervous. He had no mental disorder.

Court First Instance of Camiguin convicted him of parricide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of his deceased wife, Felicula
Vicente-Ambal.

Held:

No defense of insanity. Ambal is guilty of parricide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender to the authorities. Relationship is not aggravating in this case as it is inherent and an element
in the case.

In the instant case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated by any sufficient evidence. He
was not completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally wounded his
wife. He was not suffering from any disease or defect. The fact that immediately after the incident he
thought of surrendering to the law-enforcing authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that what he
had done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it.

Doctrine: Insanity as an Exempting circumstance, Voluntary surrender as Ordinary mitigating

circumstance
[G.R. No. L-33211. June 29, 1981.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

ERNESTO PUNO y FILOMENO,accused whose death sentence is under review.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance.

Facts:

Francisca Col – victim, killed by Ernesto Puno

Ernesto Puno – defendant/accused for killing Francisca Col; raising the defense of insanity (see defendant
claim)

At about two o'clock in the afternoon of September 8, 1970, Ernesto Puno, 28, a jeepney driver, entered
a bedroom in the house of Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, a widow. On seeing Aling Kikay sitting in
bed, Puno insulted her by saying: "Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog." Then, he
repeatedly slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a hammer until she was dead.

Puno's father surrendered him to the police. He was charged with murder in the municipal court.

On October 21, 1970, he was indicted for murder in the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal. Alleged in
the information as aggravating circumstances were evident premeditation, abuse of superiority and
disregard of sex.

Puno, testified about five months after the killing, pretended that he did not remember having killed Aling
Kikay. Puno believes that a person harmed by a "mambabarang" might have a headache or a swelling
nose and ears and can be cured only by a quack doctor. Consequently, it is necessary to kill the
"mangkukulam" and "mambabarang."

Witnesses:
Zenaida Gabriel, 30, Puno's wife, testified that on the night before the murder, Puno's eyes were reddish.
He complained of a headache. The following day while he was feeding the pigs, he told Zenaida that a
bumble bee was coming towards him and he warded it off with his hands. Zenaida did not see any bee.
Also, Puno tied the dog to a tree by looping the rope through its mouth and over its head. He repeatedly
boxed the dog.

The defense contends that Puno was insane when he killed Francisca Col because he had chronic
schizophrenia since 1962; he was suffering from schizophrenia on September 8, 1970, when he liquidated
the victim, and schizophrenia is a form of psychosis which deprives a person of discernment and freedom
of will.

The defense presented three psychiatrists. However, instead of proving that Puno was insane when he
killed Aling Kikay, the medical experts testified that Puno acted with discernment.

Held:

No. Puno was not legally insane when he killed the hapless and helpless victim. The facts and the
findings of the psychiatrists reveal that on that tragic occasion he was not completely deprived of reason
and freedom of will.
The accused is guilty of Murder qualified by abuse of superiority ruled:(a) that he was not legally
insane under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code when he killed the victim as he was not completely
deprived of reason and freedom of will; and (2) that with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
disregard of respect having been offset by the two mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and the offender's mental illness, he should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

2 ponente dissenting; appellant be acquitted of the charge of murder. While it has been established that
appellant was "manageable" and was "presently free from any social incapacitating psychotic symptoms"
during the trial, the fact remains that at the very moment of the commission of the alleged crime, he was
still a mentally sick person. Appellant underwent eighteen treatments and checkups for eight years
before the alleged crime was committed and barely 1 month and 15 days had elapsed since his last attack
or relapse.

Doctrine:
Insanity - Exempting circumstance
Voluntary surrender - Ordinary mitigating circumstance
Mental illness - Ordinary mitigating circumstance
Abuse of superior strength – Qualifying circumstance
Disregard of Sex – Generic aggravating
Dwelling – Generic aggravating
[G.R. No. 225599. March 22, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

CHRISTOPHER MEJARO ROA,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance.

Facts:

Eliseo Delmiguez – victim, killed by Ernesto Christopher Mejaro Roa

Christopher Mejaro Roa – defendant/accused for killing (use of bladed weapon) Eliseo Delmiguez;
raising the defense of insanity (see defendant claim)

On March 16, 2007, Issac (his uncle) claimed that accused was unusually silent, refused to take a bath and
even quarreled with his mother when prompted to do so. At 3:30pm, when Eliseo passed by the trimobile,
he was approached from behind by accused who suddenly stabbed him on the left lower back with a bolo
locally known as ginunting of an approximate length of 8 to 12 inches. Accused immediately fled and
took refuge inside the house of his uncle. SPO1 Hermilando Manzano arrived on board a motorcycle with
SPO1 Ballebar who called on accused to surrender. Upon his voluntary surrender and turnover of the
jungle knife he was holding to the police officers, accused was brought to the Bula Municipal Police
Station for investigation and detention.

There was no contest over the fact that accused-appellant, indeed, stabbed the victim, but he interposed
the defense of insanity.

The RTC ruled, he failed to discharge the burden of proving the claim of insanity. The lack of showing of
any psychotic incidents from the time of his discharge in 2002 until March 2007 suggests that his insanity
is only occasional or intermittent and, thus, precludes the presumption of continuity. Second, the trial
court acknowledged that accused-appellant exhibited abnormal behavior after the incident, particularly in
writing the name of Amado M. Tetangco in his certificate of arraignment. The trial court, however, cited
the rule that the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense may be accorded weight
only if there is also proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of
the crime.

CA dismissed the claim of insanity, and affirmed the conviction of the RTC for the offense charged. The
CA found that the circumstances of the attack bear indicia that the killing was done voluntarily: (1) the
use of a long bolo locally known as ginunting, (2) the location of the stab wounds, (3) the attempt of
accused-appellant to flee from the scene of the crime, and (4) his subsequent surrender upon being called
by the police authorities.

Held:

No. The defense failed to present any convincing evidence of accused-appellant's mental condition when
he committed the crime in March 2007. While there is evidence on record of his mental condition in 2001
and in 2012, the dates of these two diagnoses are too far away from the date of the commission of the
offense in 2007. The claims of CA was affirmed ( see italics); The foregoing actions of accused-appellant
immediately before, during, and immediately after he committed the offense indicate that he was
conscious of his actions, that he intentionally committed the act of stabbing, knowing the natural
consequence of such act, and finally, that such act of stabbing is a morally reprehensible wrong.
[G.R. No. 216021. March 2, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

SOLOMON VERDADERO y GALERA,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance.

Facts:

Romeo Plata - victim, killed by Solomon Verdadero

Solomon Verdadero– defendant/accused for killing (Rambo knife) Romeo Plata; raising the defense of
insanity (see defendant claim)

Prosecution
On March 12, 2009, Maynard Plata and his father Romeo were at the Baggao Police Station. Together
with Ronnie Elaydo, they went there to report that Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation
pump. After a confrontation with Verdadero at the police station, Romeo proceeded towards a store near
the drugstore while Ronnie stayed inside the tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero
stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie.

Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left side of the latter's upper back with the use of a Rambo knife. He
again struck Romeo's upper back, just below the right shoulder. The responding police officers arrested
Verdadero. Romeo, however, died upon arrival at the CVMC. Based on the Post-Mortem Examination
Report, his cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe hemorrhage secondary to
multiple stab wounds and hack wounds.

Defense
The evidence for the defense did not refute the material allegations but revolved around Verdadero's
alleged insanity. Acting on the January 4, 2011 Order of the RTC, Dr. Ethel Maureen Pagaddu conducted
a mental examination on Verdadero. She confirmed that as early as 1999, he was already brought to
CVMC and that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia on July 21, 2003. Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr.
Andres-Juliana that Verdadero had suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing incident.

On May 30, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision finding Verdadero guilty for the crime of homicide. The
trial court posited that Verdadero was unsuccessful in establishing that he was not in a lucid interval at the
time he stabbed Romeo or that he was completely of unsound mind prior to or coetaneous with the
commission of the crime.

In its July 10, 2014 Decision, the CA upheld Verdadero's conviction of homicide. The appellate court
agreed that the defense was able to establish that Verdadero had a history of schizophrenic attacks, but
was unable to prove that he was not lucid at the time of the commission of the offense.

Held:

Yes. Court grants the petition and Acquits accused- appellant Solomon Verdadero y Galera of Homicide
by reason of insanity. He is ordered confined at the National Center for Mental Health for treatment and
shall be released only upon order of the Regional Trial Court acting on a recommendation from his
attending physicians from the institution. He is, nevertheless, responsible to indemnify the heirs of Romeo
for the latter's death.
The Court finds that Verdadero sufficiently proved that he was insane at the time of the stabbing. Dr.
Paggadu, without any reservations, stated that Verdadero was suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia at
the time of the stabbing incident. In contrast, she was hesitant to opine that Verdadero might have been in
a lucid interval because of the medications taken. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the
testimony of an expert witness, that Verdadero was of unsound mind at the time he stabbed Romeo.

Further, the finding of Verdadero's insanity is supported by the observations made by Maynard, a witness
for the prosecution. Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was his neighbor for a long time.
On the day of the stabbing incident, Maynard perceived that Verdadero was again of unsound mind
noting that he had reddish eyes and appeared to be drunk. Moreover, he was immediately transferred to
the psychiatry department because of his impaired sleep and to control him from harming himself and
others.

These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's testimony that drinking wine, poor sleep and
violent behavior were among the symptoms of a relapse, the same testimony that was used as basis for
his previous diagnosis.

Further, on March 22, 2009, he was officially diagnosed to have suffered a relapse of schizophrenia.
Generally, evidence of insanity after the commission of the crime is immaterial. It, however, may be
appreciated and given weight if there is also proof of abnormal behavior before or simultaneous to the
crime.

[G.R. No. 200026. October 4, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

ARMANDO DELECTOR,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the defense of mere accident as an exempting
circumstance.

Facts:

Vicente Delector - victim, killed by Armando Delector his brother

Armando Delector– defendant/accused for killing (revolver) Vicente Delector; raising the defense of
mere accident

Prosecution
On August 8, 1997, the late Vicente Delector was talking with his brother, Antolin, near his residence
when the accused, another brother, shot him twice. He was later on transferred to the Samar Provincial
Hospital where he succumbed to his gunshot wounds at about 1:00 a.m. of the next day.

Vicente's son, Arnel, identified his uncle, the accused, as his father's assailant. Arnel attested that the
accused had fired his gun at his father from their mother's house, and had hit his father who was then
talking with Antolin. Corroborating Arnel's identification was Raymond Reyes, who had happened to be
along after having come from his school. Raymond also said that Vicente had been only conversing with
Antolin when the accused shot him twice.

Defense

The accused insisted during the trial that the shooting of Vicente had been by accident. His own son
corroborated his insistence. According to them, Vicente had gone to their house looking for him, but he
had earlier left to go to their mother's house nearby in order to avoid a confrontation with Vicente;
however, Vicente followed him to their mother's house and dared him to come out, compelling Antolin
to intervene and attempt to pacify Vicente. Instead, Vicente attacked Antolin, which forced the accused
to go out of their mother's house. Seeing Vicente to be carrying his gun, he tried to wrest the gun from
Vicente, and they then grappled with each other for control of the gun. At that point, the gun
accidentally fired, and Vicente was hit.

RTC rendered its decision, finding the accused guilty of murder.

CA affirmed the conviction for murder. The CA opined that the exempting circumstance of accident was
highly improbable.

(1) It is unlikely that the accused-appellant would purposely set out and grapple with the victim who,
if he is to be believed, was already armed with a gun while he (accused-appellant) was totally
unarmed. But then, even granting that the accused-appellant merely acted in defense of his other
brother, Antolin, his failure to help or show concern to the victim, who was also his brother, casts
serious doubts to his defense of accident.
(2) A revolver, the gun involved in this case, is not one that is prone to accidental firing because of
the nature of its mechanism. Considerable pressure on the trigger must have been applied for it to
have fired.

Held:

No. We affirm the decision of the CA that accident could not be appreciated in favor of the accused, but
we must find and declare that, indeed, the crime committed was homicide, not murder (neither treachery
nor evident premeditation had been established against the accused is also notable).

Accident could not be appreciated herein as an exempting circumstance simply because the accused did
not establish that he had acted with (1) due care, and without fault or intention of causing the injuries to
the victim. The gun was a revolver that would not fire unless there was considerable pressure applied on
its trigger, or its hammer was pulled back and released. The assertion of accident could have been
accorded greater credence had there been only a single shot fired, for such a happenstance could have
been attributed to the unintentional pulling of the hammer during the forceful grappling for control of the
gun. Yet, the revolver fired twice, which we think eliminated accident. (2) Further, the location of the
gunshot wounds belies and negated accused claim of accident.

[G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

ADINA B. MANANSALA,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the lower courts contention of the presence of uncontrollable fear is appreciated
in the case.

Facts:

Kathleen Siy - victim, terminated from job due to act of Lacanilao and Manansala
Adina Manansala– defendant/accused for Falsification of Private Documents; raising the defense of
uncontrollable fear of her superior Lacanilao

On May 31, 1999, private complainant Kathleen L. Siy (Siy), former Vice President of UMC Finance
and Leasing Corporation (UMC), instructed her secretary, Marissa Bautista (Bautista), to withdraw via
ATM the amount of P38,000.00 from her Metrobank and Bank of the Philippine Islands bank accounts.
However, Bautista was not able to make such withdrawal as the ATM was offline so she took it upon
herself to get such amount from the petty cash custodian of UMC instead, but she forgot to inform Siy
where she got the money.

On June 9, 1999, UMC Finance Manager Violeta Q. Dizon-Lacanilao (Lacanilao) informed Siy that as
per the Petty Cash Replenishment Report prepared by UMC Petty Cash Custodian Manansala, she
allegedly made a cash advance in the amount of P38,000.00 which remained unliquidated. It was only
then that Siy found out what Bautista had done, and she immediately rectified the situation by issuing two
(2) checks to reimburse UMC's petty cash account. As the checks were eventually encashed resulting in
the replenishment of UMC's petty cash account, Lacanilao instructed Manansala to revise the subject
report by deleting the entry relating to Siy's alleged cash advance, to which Manansala acceded.

Sometime in March 2000, Lacanilao instructed Manansala to retrieve the subject report, re-insert the
entry relating to Siy's alleged cash advance therein, reprint the same on a scratch paper, and repeatedly
fold the paper to make it look old. On the basis of the reprinted subject document, Siy was
administratively charged for using office funds for personal use. On April 18, 2000, Siy was
terminated from her job and Lacanilao succeeded the former in the position she left vacant.

In her defense, Manansala maintained that she was just following Lacanilao's orders as the latter is her
superior who approves her work.

In a Decision dated October 27, 2010, the MeTC both found Lacanilao and Manansala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Falsification of Private Documents. Nonetheless, the MeTC
appreciated the mitigating circumstance of acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear in favor of
Manansala, noting that she merely acted upon Lacanilao's instructions and that she only performed such
acts out of fear that she would lose her job if she defied her superior's orders.

RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in toto.

The CA agreed with the MeTC and RTC's findings that Manansala made untruthful statements in the
subject report which was contrary to her duty as UMC Petty Cash Custodian and that such findings were
utilized to the detriment of Siy who was terminated on the basis of said falsified report.

Held:

No. It was error for the MeTC to appreciate the "mitigating circumstance" of acting under an impulse of
uncontrollable fear and for the RTC and the CA to affirm in toto. "Acting under an impulse of
uncontrollable fear" is not among the mitigating circumstances enumerated in Article 13 of the RPC, but
is an exempting circumstance provided under Article 12 (6) of the same code.

In the instant case, while the records show that Manansala was apprehensive in committing a falsity in the
preparation of the subject report as she did not know the repercussions of her actions, nothing would
show that Lacanilao, or any of her superiors at UMC for that matter, threatened her with loss of
employment should she fail to do so. As there was an absence of any real and imminent threat,
intimidation, or coercion that would have compelled Manansala to do what she did, such a circumstance
cannot be appreciated in her favor.

[G.R. No. 206590. March 27, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

MYRNA GAYOSO y ARGUELLES,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the test-buy solicitation constitute instigation (absolutory cause).

Facts:

Myrna Gayoso y Arguelles - guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 (illegal sale of a
dangerous drug) and 11 (illegal possession of a dangerous drug)

Prosecution

PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance on appellant
after receiving several reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later, SPO3 De Dios
confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed for and was issued
a search warrant. However, prior to implementing the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a
"confirmatory test-buy" designating SPO3 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him P200.00 marked
money for the operation.

On March 24, 2004, SPO3 De Dios and a civilian asset proceeded to the house of appellant and asked her
if they could buy shabu. The sale was consummated when appellant took the marked money from SPO3
De Dios after giving him a sachet of shabu. SPO3 De Dios immediately informed PI Barber by text
message about the successful "confirmatory test-buy." PI Barber and his team of police officers who were
positioned 100 meters away rushed towards the house of appellant. When he arrived together with a
kagawad and a media representative, SPO3 Salamida read the search warrant to appellant.

During the search of the house, SPO4 Bandoy found a tin foil under the mattress. SPO3 De Dios took it
from SPO4 Bandoy and gave it to SPO3 Salamida who found seven sachets of shabu inside, in addition to
the four sachets ofshabu found inside the right pocket of the short pants of appellant. The search of the
house also revealed several drug paraphernalia. An inventory of seized items was prepared and the same
was signed by the Barangay Chairman, PO2 Isip, SPO4 Bandoy, and appellant. The sachets of shabu
were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
qualitative examination. The results of the examination verified that the seized sachets contained shabu.
Defendant

Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on March 24, 2004, somebody forcibly kicked
the front door of her house and tried to break it open. When she opened the door, PI Barber pushed her
aside and told his companions to move quickly. They went directly to her room; when PO2 Isip emerged
therefrom seconds later, he was holding a substance that looked like tawas. SPO3 De Dios and SPO3
Salamida went in and out of her house. She maintained that the search warrant was shown to her only
after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were planted. She argued that the police officers fabricated the
charges against her since her family had a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero
regarding the fence separating their houses.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of Shabu.
The RTC ruled that the evidence sufficiently established the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu from
the time they were bought from appellant and/or seized from her house, to its turnover to the PDEA and
submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial
and frame-up in view of her positive identification by eyewitnesses as the criminal offender.

The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling finding appellant guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of
shabu. The CA was not swayed by appellant's contention that the "test-buy operation" amounted to
instigation since it is settled jurisprudence that a "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement or
instigation.

Held:
No. Confirmatory test-buy solicitation does not constitute instigation. The "test-buy" operation conducted
by the police officers is not prohibited by law. The police received an intelligence report that appellant
habitually deals with shabu. They designated a poseur buyer to confirm the report by engaging in a drug
transaction with appellant. There was no proof that the poseur buyer induced appellant to sell illegal drugs
to him.

Notwithstanding, appellant was acquitted on the ground that the chain of custody of evidence was not
established.

[G.R. No. 171284. June 29, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can raise the self-defense or incomplete self-defense as a privilege
mitigating circumstance.

Facts:

Francisco Batulan - victim,

Alfredo Dulin y Narag alias Freddie– defendant/accused for killing Francisco Batulan; raised self-defense
or incomplete self-defense as justifying/mitigating circumstance.

Prosecution
On August 22, 1990, the said accused, Alfredo Dulin y Narag alias Freddie, armed with a sharp blade(d)
instrument, attack, assault and stab one, Francisco Batulan, inflicting upon him several stab wounds on
the different parts of his body which caused his death.

Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was holding
Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and thrusting the knife at the latter with his right hand. Tamayao
(witness) mentioned of the long standing grudge between Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them fighting
in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two occasions: He will soon have his day and I will kill him.

Batulan was attended to at the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital on August 22, 1990 by Dr. Macaraniag,
who said that the victim was in a state of shock from his 12 stab wounds.

Defense
Batulan, stabbed him on the right side of his body and in the left hand; that he (Dulin) ran to the upper
level of Carolina Danao's house, pursued by Batulan who stabbed him again several times; that they
grappled for the weapon until he (Dulin) was able to wrest it from Batulan; that he (Dulin) stabbed
Batulan with the weapon, and they struggled until he (Dulin) felt weak, eventually falling to the ground;
and that he (Dulin) regained consciousness only the next day at the hospital.

RTC rendered its decision convicting Dulin of murder and appreciating the privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense and no aggravating circumstance.

CA affirmed the conviction subject to the modification of the civil liability. No aggravating and no
mitigating circumstance.

Held:

No self-defense and incomplete self-defense. Batulan, albeit the initial aggressor against Dulin, ceased to
be the aggressor as soon as Dulin had dispossessed him of the weapon. With the aggression by Batulan
having thereby ceased, he did not anymore pose any imminent threat against Dulin. Hence, Batulan was
not committing any aggression when Dulin fatally stabbed him. Further, the numerosity and nature of the
wounds inflicted by the accused reflected his determination to kill Batulan, and the fact that he was not
defending himself.

Convicted with Homicide instead of Murder as Treachery was not proven to be present.

[G.R. No. 195224. June 15, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

VIRGINIA JABALDE y JAMANDRON,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not accused can raise passion or obfuscation as mitigating circumstance.

Facts:

Lin Bitoon- victim 8 year old

VIRGINIA JABALDE y JAMANDRON- teacher, accused for causing slight physical injuries to Lin
Bitoon due to injury to her daughter
Prosecution

That on December 13, 2000, Lin, a Grade 1 pupil of Cawitan Elementary School, was playing "langit
lupa" during recess with Ray Ann, Marco, Nova and another classmate. During the course of their game,
he touched the shoulder of Nova, Jabalde's daughter, causing the latter to fall down and wounding her
head. He then helped Nova to stand while one of his classmates called Jabalde. Afraid of what happened,
he ran towards a dilapidated building, which was near the place of the incident. Soon thereafter, Jabalde
arrived and slapped him on his neck and choked him. Lin was able to get out of her hold when he
removed her hands from his neck. He immediately ran towards their house some 500 meters away from
the school. Ray Ann, his classmate, corroborated this statement.

Dr. Muñoz testified that she was the physician who issued the medical certificate to Lin. Dr. Muñoz
stated that Lin sustained abrasions. The abrasions could have been caused by a hard object but mildly
inflicted and that these linear abrasions were signs of fingernail marks.

Defense

She remembered that she was teaching Mathematics when some children went to her classroom and
shouted "Mam Jabalde, Ma'm Jabalde, Nova's head was punctured (nabuslot)". Thinking that her daughter
was dead, her vision got blurred and she fainted. When she returned into consciousness, she sat on her
chair in front of the board for about 5 to 10 minutes. The children then came again and shouted that her
daughter's head got punctured. She ran towards her daughter's classroom. But, before reaching the place
of the incident, she saw her grandson Lin crying. She asked him the whereabouts of Nova but he just kept
on jumping and so she held him still. Lin said, "Lola[,] forgive me, forgive me"and immediately ran.
Jabalde proceeded to her daughter's room and saw the latter seated on the desk. Thereafter, she brought
Nova to her own classroom and applied first aid. Then she resumed teaching.

RTC found Jabalde guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI, of R.A.
No. 7610, appreciating in her favor the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

CA dismissed Jabalde's appeal and affirmed the RTC decision with modification.

Held:

Yes. Decision: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries with mitigating
circumstance.

The Court has to consider the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of
the RPC, because Jabalde lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will
power. With her having acted under the belief that Lin had killed her daughter, Jabalde is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

For passion and obfuscation to be considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that: (1) an
unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim; (2) the
crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that
produced the obfuscation in the accused's mind; and (3) the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or .
[G.R. No. L-34785. July 30, 1979.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

RENATO BARRIOS Y ALMOGUERA and RICO NAZARIO IBAÑEZ,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of craft and abuse of superior strength in
the commission of the crime.

Facts:

Teodoro Castillo y Molina- victim, a taxi driver

Renato Barrios y Almoguera and Rico Nazario y Ibañez- charged in September 1971 with the crime of
robbery with homicide

On August 28, 1971, the accused, together with one Arthur, who is still at large, conspired, confederated
with and helped one another in killing and robbing the victim, Nazario admitted in his statement that he
invited Barrios to stage a hold-up in Perlita Street. Thereupon, a taxi passed by and he stopped it. They
boarded the same and he sat in the front seat while Barrios and Arthur sat at the back with Arthur
immediately behind the driver of the taxi. Thereafter, Barrios poked the balisong on the taxi driver. Then
they pulled said taxi driver to the rear seat in order to frisk him but the driver shouted for help. Fearing
that they might be heard and the driver would create a scandal, Barrios immediately stabbed the driver 3
times. Thereafter, he and his companions fled. Nazario further declared that Barrios also stabbed the taxi
driver because he fought back.

This was corroborated by a testimony of eyewitness, Generoso Quimpo, Jr.

The trial court imposed the death penalty on both accused because of the finding that the commission of
the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of craft and abuse of superior strength
without any mitigating circumstance. The trial court found that craft was present because the two accused
stopped the taxicab by pretending to be passengers.

Held:

No. Decision: penalty imposed on the two accused is reclusion perpetua, no aggravating circumstances.
There is no evidence that the two accused pretended to be passengers (craft). In fact, it is not clear how
the taxicab was stopped.

Further, the testimony of the eyewitness rules out the existence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength. Only one man was struggling with the taxi driver at the rear seat of the taxicab and
the witness saw only one man coming out of the rear of the taxicab and running towards the opposite
direction going to Estrada Street.

It is settled that an aggravating circumstance should be proven as fully as the crime itself in order to
aggravate the penalty.
[G.R. No. 214757. March 29, 2017]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

TIRSO SIBBU,accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of treachery, dwelling, and use of disguise
were sufficiently established.

Facts:

Victims:

Bryan Julian- Criminal case no. 11722

Trisha May Julian (Trisha)-3-yr old daughter of Bryan, Criminal case no. 11721

Ofelian Julian (Ofelia)-mother of Bryan, Criminal case no. 11723

Warlito Julian (Warlito)- father of Bryan, Criminal case no. 11724

Tirso Sibbu- accused

Prosecution

Bryan Julian (Bryan), the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 11722 and a common witness to all
the cases, testified that between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. of December 6, 2004, he was with his three-year old
daughter, Trisha May Julian (Trisha), the victim in Criminal Case No. 11721; his mother Ofelia Julian
(Ofelia), the victim in Criminal Case No. 11723; and his father, Warlito Julian (Warlito), the victim in
Criminal Case No. 11724 in the azotea of his parents' house when he saw from a distance of about five
meters a person in camouflage uniform with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over
his head. When the armed man inched closer to the house, he tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing
Bryan the opportunity to see his face; Bryan had a clear look at the armed man because there were
Christmas lights hanging from the roof of their porch. Bryan recognized the armed man as the appellant.
Bryan also saw two men in crouching position at a distance of three meters away from the appellant.
Fearing the worst, Bryan shouted a warning to his family. Appellant then fired upon them killing Trisha,
Ofelia and Warlito.

Bryan ran inside the house where he saw his brother, Warlito Julian, Jr. (Warlito Jr.) coming out of the
bathroom. Bryan then proceeded to the pigpen at the back of the house to hide.

This was corroborated by prosecution witness and Warlito Julian Jr.

P/Supt. Lusad chief of the provincial intelligence and investigation branch of Ilocos Norte, testified that at
7:00 a.m. of December 7, 2004, he conducted an investigation and an ocular inspection at the crime
scene; found bloodstains on the floor of the porch, the cadavers of the victims laid side by side in the sala,
and bullet holes in the cemented portion at the front of the house below the window grill. Police officers
found 13 spent shells and slugs of a caliber .30 carbine.

Defense

The appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi.

Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that on December 6, 2004, he never left the house
of his in-laws because he was taking care of his sick son. He claimed to have heard the explosions but
thought that those were sounds of firecrackers since it was nearing Christmas. Appellant denied having
any misunderstanding with the Julian family, or knowing Bryan and Benny personally, or possessing
camouflage clothing.

Appellant's father-in-law, Eladio Ruiz (Eladio), testified that appellant did not leave their house because
they had a visitor, Elpidio Alay (Elpidio); moreover, appellant tended to his child. Eladio stated that the
distance between his house and Warlito's is approximately two kilometers and that it would take an hour
to negotiate the distance by foot.

Elpidio stated that the appellant did not leave the house that night and that appellant was inside the house
when he heard explosions.

RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Case
Nos. 11721, 11723, and 11724, and of attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 11722. The RTC gave
credence to Bryan's positive identification of appellant as the person who shot at him and killed his
daughter, mother and father. On the other hand, the RTC found appellant's defense of denial and alibi
weak.

CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with modification.

Held:

Treachery was correctly appreciated as qualifying circumstance. In this case, the evidence on record
reveals that at the time of the shooting incident, Warlito, Ofelia, Trisha, and Bryan were at the porch of
their house totally unaware of the impending attack. In addition, they were all unarmed thus unable to
mount a defense in the event of an attack. On the other hand, appellant and his cohorts were armed. They
also surreptitiously approached the residence of the victims. Appellant, in particular, wore camouflage
uniform to avoid detection.

Dwelling should be appreciated. Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, his victim
was inside. For this circumstance to be considered it is not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house.

Use of disguise should be appreciated. Bryan testified that the appellant covered his face with a bonnet
during the shooting incident. There could be no other possible purpose for wearing a bonnet over
appellant's face but to conceal his identity, especially since Bryan and appellant live in the same
barangay and are familiar with each other.
Decision: Guilty of Murder for Criminal cases 11721,11723,11724 and attempted murder in case
11722(bryan).

Since two aggravating circumstances of dwelling and use of disguise attended the commission of the
crime of murder, appellant should be sentenced to death in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death. Thus under Article 63, the higher penalty should be imposed. However, because of the passage of
Republic Act No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the
imposition of death penalty is now prohibited.

The law provides that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed with
no eligibility for parole.

[G.R. No. 198954. February 22, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Rodrigo Macaspac y Isip (Macaspac),accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation
sufficiently established.

Facts:

Robert Jebulan y Pelaez (Jebulan)- victim

Rodrigo Macaspac y Isip (Macaspac)- accused

Prosecution

At around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Jebulan and others. In
the course of their drinking, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated
that, Macaspac uttered to the group: Hintayin n'yo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo, and then left. After
around three minutes Macaspac returned wielding a kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan,
saying: Ano? Jebulan simply replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the
lower right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. The
badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

Defense

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had scuffled for the possession of
the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife.

However, Macaspac later on claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife.
Macaspac denied being the person with whom Jebulan had the argument, which he insisted had been
between Barcomo and one Danny. According to him, he tried to pacify their argument, but his effort
angered Jebulan, who drew out the knife and tried to stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of
Jebulan, whom he struck with a wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on the
knife, puncturing his chest.

RTC found Macaspac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

CA affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability by imposing civil indemnity.

Held:

No attendance of treachery. The attack, even if it was sudden, did not constitute treachery. He did not
mount the attack with surprise because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry
threat of going back "to sweep them" had sufficiently forewarned the latter of the impending lethal
assault.

No attendance of evident premeditation. The first and second elements of evident premeditation were
thereby established, third was not.

(1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime - Macaspac's having suddenly left the
group and his utterance of Hintayin n'yo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo

(2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; - His
returning to the group with the knife manifested his clinging to his resolve to inflict lethal harm on the
others.

(3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act. - Absent. By quickly returning to the group with the knife, he let no
appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent.

Decision: Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan.

[G.R. No. 226475. March 13, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

CYRUS VILLANUEVA y ISORENA alias "Tutoy" and ALVIN SAYSON y ESPONCILLA alias "Alvin
Talangka",accused-appelant.

Issue: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength sufficiently
established.

Facts:

Enrico Enriquez y Vinluan- victim

Cyrus Villanueva y Isorena (Villanueva)- accused

Alvin Sayson y Esponcilla (Sayson)-accused

Prosecution

At around past 5:00 a.m. of January 1, 2012, Arnie Bañaga (Bañaga) was selling tapsilog to a group of
persons playing cara y cruz. Thereupon, Bañaga saw the accused-appellants and Valencia arrive and ask
the group if they know Enrico Enriquez (Enrico), to which they answered in the negative. Thereupon, the
accused-appellants and Valencia went to the tricycle terminal, which was about 10 to 15 meters away,
where they saw Enrico.

They then simultaneously attacked Enrico. Villanueva punched Enrico on the face twice while Sayson
hit the latter at the back of the head with a stone wrapped in a t-shirt. Valencia then stabbed Enrico on the
left side of his armpit twice. Enrico tried to fight back to no avail. The assailants thereafter fled. However,
Villanueva was caught by men aboard a pursuing tricycle.

Enrico was brought to the Muntinlupa Medical Center, but he was declared dead on arrival. The Doctor
noted two stab wounds on the left side of Enrico's chest, one of which penetrated the left atrium of the
heart.

Defense

The accused-appellants denied the allegations against them. Villanueva claimed that on January 1, 2012,
at around 2:00 a.m., the accused-appellants and Valencia went to the house of their friend in Summitville
to eat. At around 4:30 a.m.,Valencia left the group and, 30 minutes thereafter, the accused-appellants also
went home. On their way home, the accused-appellants saw Valencia arguing with Enrico which led to a
fistfight. They tried to pacify Valencia and Enrico, but the latter suddenly fell on the ground. Valencia
immediately ran away, leaving the accused-appellants standing near the body of Enrico. Villanueva then
ran away as he was scared that the bystanders in the tricycle terminal would gang up on them. On his way
home, Villanueva noticed a tricycle boarded by Bañaga and his companions. Bañaga then forced him to
board the tricycle and, once inside, he was beaten up by Bañaga and his companions. Villanueva was then
brought to the Philippine General Hospital to be treated.

Sayson corroborated Villanueva's testimony as regards the stabbing incident. He averred that after Enrico
fell on the ground, he ran to his house. He was surprised when the two barangay officials arrived at his
house later in the morning that same day to invite him for questioning.

The RTC held that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants and Valencia. In convicting them
of the crime of murder, the RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
considering that Enrico was all alone when he was attacked.

CA rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the conviction.

Held:

Abuse of superior strength not appreciated in this case. The prosecution failed to present evidence as
regards the relative disparity in age, size, strength or force between the accused- appellants and
Valencia, on one hand, and Enrico, on the other. Indeed, the lower courts merely inferred the existence of
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength on the facts that Enrico was attacked by three
assailants, the accused-appellants and Valencia, who were armed with a knife and a stone. However,
mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.

The accused- appellants' guilt is, thus, limited to the crime of homicide.

[G.R. No. 199522. June 22, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent,

RICKY DINAMLING, petitioner

Issue: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of the victim being pregnant and the time of
commission of crime and ignominy sufficiently established.

Facts:

AAA- victim, woman whom Dinamling had children

Ricky Dinamling - petitioner, abused AAA who he have five-year ongoing relationship and 2 children

In the evening of March 14, 2007, an incident occurred in which she and her children were actually
evicted by Dinamling from a boarding house. Dinamling, in the presence of his own friend and the
children, accused AAA of using the boarding house as a "whore-house" and alleged that AAA brought
sexual partners in that place. Dinamling further humiliated AAA by telling her to pack her clothes in a
trash bag and in a carton box used to pack ducklings. He then threw a baby bottle outside and broke it.
This forced AAA to hastily leave even without her children. Dinamling also left and took with him the
elder child and left the baby behind. AAA had to ask for her friends to fetch the children but the latter
found only the baby. According to AAA and her mother DDD, that incident was not an isolated one, as
similar incidents had happened previously.

On March 20, 2007, Dinamling,

a) by calling and counting down on AAA for the latter to come out of the house where she was staying;

b) by punching AAA at the left ear upon seeing her;

c) by shouting AAA's family name and calling her "good-for-nothing;"

d) by saying that AAA could sue him but he would just pay her;

e) by kicking AAA to the ground and then pulling off her pants and underwear (panty) and calling her
worthless;

f) by throwing the pants and panty back at AAA while shouting AAA's family name as he left.

All such acts were committed while in full view and hearing of the public, highlighting the public ridicule
and humiliation done on AAA and causing her mental and emotional pain.
Ricky Dinamling was charged in two (2) criminal Informations in the Regional Trial Court for violation
of Section 5 (i), in relation to Section 6 (f) 7 of RA No. 9262 VAWC. Corroborated by Court of appeals
with modification of penalty.

Held:

Yes. The fact of AAA's pregnancy during the crime's commission has been alleged and established. RA
9262 provides that if the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the
presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the
section.

Both Criminal Case Nos. 1701 and 1702 involve the same offense as defined in RA 9262 and are
punishable by the same range of penalties as prescribed in the said law. However, due to the greater
ignominy (humiliation) of the acts done by the accused in Criminal Case No. 1702, the minimum and
maximum lengths of the sentence imposed should therefore be greater than in Criminal Case No. 1702.

[G.R. No. 224900. March 15, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

NESTOR M. BUGARIN, accused-appellant

Issue: Whether or not there is treachery in the commission of the crime.

Facts:

Esmeraldo B. Pontanar-victim (1st case of murder), killed thru multiple gunshot wounds

Cristito C. Pontanar- victim (2nd case of murder), killed thru gunshot wound, father of Esmeraldo, also
72-year old father-in-law of the accused, tried to rescue son Esmeraldo

Maria Glen Neis Pontanar- victim (attempted murder), wife of Esmeraldo, shot but able to run away

Nestor Bugarin y Martinez- Accused charged with crimes of double murder and attempted murder; claims
self-defense, bro-in-law of Esmeraldo

Prosecution

Pontanars and the Bugarins had been harboring ill-feelings towards each other. The spouses Esmeraldo
and Maria Glen(Pontanar) were on their way to the house of their father, Cristito, which was likewise
near the house of the Bugarins. When they were close to the house of the Bugarins, Esmeraldo's sister,
Anecita, then started throwing gravel and sand at them. Esmeraldo asked her to stop but she refused to
listen.

● Thereafter, Bugarin, Anecita's husband, came out of their house and suddenly shot Esmeraldo
several times. Esmeraldo sustained two (2) gunshot wounds in the back and one (1) in his left
side, which late r took his life.
 ● her father-in-law, Cristito, running out of his house towards Esmeraldo's direction. Cristito raised
his hands and begged Bugarin to stop shooting. But Bugarin also shot him, causing his death.
● Bugarin then looked for Maria Glen(wife of Esmeraldo) and when he finally found her, he also
shot her. Fortunately, Maria Glen was only hit in her thigh.

Defense

Bugarin contended that what he had done was merely an act of self- defense. At the time of the incident,
he was watching television at home when his wife, Anecita went out to walk their dogs. Then he heard
her having an altercation with Maria Glen. At first, he did not want to intervene but then he saw his
brother-in-law and Maria Glen's husband, Esmeraldo, approaching and carrying a 9 mm pistol, a .45
caliber gun, and an M16 rifle. Then Esmeraldo started shouting in front of their house, challenging him to
go out.

● So Bugarin went out and shouted angrily at Esmeraldo, then the latter began to draw his gun.
This prompted Bugarin to draw his own gun and shoot Esmeraldo twice. Esmeraldo was thrown
backwards and when he was about to fall to the ground, Bugarin shot him one more time.
● His father-in-law, Cristito, came rushing towards his son. Believing that Cristito would get his
son's firearm and shoot him, Bugarin acted quickly and shot him first.
● He saw Maria Glen with a pipe, who was about to strike Anecita with it, so he also shot her,
hitting her in the leg.

RTC of Cebu City found Bugarin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder and attempted
murder, with the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm.

Court of Appeals:

● petitioner vs. Esmeralda - affirmed, murder

● petitioner vs. Cristito- modified, homicide
● Petitioner vs. Maria Glen- modified, attempted homicide

Held:

No self-defense. The evidence of the case shows that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
victims. His version of the events was found to be less credible by the trial court. Decision, affirms to the
decision of RTC:

● petitioner vs. Esmeralda - murder

● petitioner vs. Cristito- murder
● Petitioner vs. Maria Glen- attempted murder

As to the shooting of all victims, there is a presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance (i.e. crime
is Murder).

● According to the medical report, Esmeraldo's wounds would establish that he was shot in the
back twice and also in his left side, giving him no means of retaliation or escape, and without any
risk to Bugarin. In fact, Bugarin himself said that when Esmeraldo was thrown backwards and
was about to fall to the ground, he shot him again to make sure he was "finished."
 ● Bugarin's attack on Cristito was sudden and unexpected, affording the latter no opportunity
to defend himself or fight back. The alleged provocation on Cristito's part was uncorroborated
and not proven. More importantly, Bugarin himself stated that when he shot Cristito in the chest,
the latter was looking down at the dead body of his son sprawled on the ground. He shot him
"dahil konsintidor, hindi marunong makisama, magsama na silang mag-ama, because he is siding
his son, "clearly manifesting that he knowingly chose his mode of attack and intended it to
accomplish his wicked intent of likewise killing the father rather than a mere impulsive reaction
to a surprising turn of events.
● Bugarin already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill Maria Glen but failed to
perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, i.e., poor aim. Maria
Glen was likewise not in any position to defend herself or repel the attack since she was unarmed.

In the two cases of Murder, Bugarin admitted that he used an unlicensed .45 caliber gun in shooting the
victims. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294, treats the
unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a
special aggravating circumstance. Thus, the same cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance such as voluntary surrender, as in the instant case. This should not however apply to the
attempted murder as it only applies to killing.

Thereby, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of Bugarin.

In the case, even if there is no intention to kill his father in law and sister in law, treachery still is
appreciated in this case.