Justifying circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO B. SIEGA, Accused-

Appellant.
G.R. No. 213273, June 27, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Leonardo B. Siega (Siega) was charged with the crime of Murder. He pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged and alleged the defense of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He averred
that when he was about to enter his house, he heard a sound coming from the feeder road facing his
residence. When Siega turned to the source of the noise, he saw Pacenciano Bitoy (Bitoy), rushing
towards him and shouting at him to get out of his house so that they could end their grudge against
each other. As Bitoy was nearing him, Siega saw the former attempting to draw the bolo that was
wrapped on his waist. Scared by Bitoy's actions, Siega immediately grabbed unto the bolo that was
then beside him and hacked Bitoy. Siega inflicted several injuries on Bitoy, before the latter retreated
and ran away. On the other hand, the prosecution alleged that Bitoy and his friend Alingasa were
walking on their way home when Siega armed with a bolo suddenly approached them and asked who
would dare challenge him. Bitoy replied that no one would dare challenge him. Siega then walked
towards the direction of the Purok Center. Suddenly, Siega turned back, asked Bitoy whether he was
the tough guy of Jagna, and stabbed the latter with a long bolo on the left part of his chest.
Surprised by the incident, Bitoy tried to flee but Siega ran after him and continued his assault.
Alingasa saw Siega continue to hack Bitoy even if the latter was already lying on the ground. Due to
the severity of his wounds, Bitoy died that afternoon. The postmortem report of Dr. Mosot showed
that Bitoy sustained three (3) hack wounds on his face, which caused his right eyeball to pop out;
two (2) hack wounds on his forearms; and three (3) deep penetrating stab wounds on his chest
cavity, which could have caused his immediate death due to hemorrhage or massive bleeding and
loss of blood. The RTC found Siega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s Decision with modifications.

ISSUE: Whether the claim of self-defense by Siega is proper.

HELD: No. The Court held that an accused, who pleads self-defense, has the burden of proving, with
clear and convincing evidence, that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. Of these three, unlawful aggression is most important and indispensable.

Unlawful aggression refers to "an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent
injury, upon a person." Without unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-defense has
no leg to stand on and cannot be appreciated. Siega failed to establish unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim, Bitoy. Siega claimed that Bitoy came rushing to his house armed with a bolo.
When Bitoy attempted to draw his weapon, Siega picked up a sharp pointed bolo and stabbed Bitoy
several times. This is belied by the straightforward and credible testimony of Alingasa that Bitoy did
not carry any weapon at that time. This was corroborated by the fact that no weapon was recovered
from the victim. Moreover, even if the Court were to believe Siega's version of the events, still, no
unlawful aggression can be deduced, because there was clearly no imminent danger on the person of
Siega as would justify his killing of Bitoy. Unlawful aggression is predicated on an actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent danger — not merely a threatening or intimidating action. Bitoy's supposed
act of holding a weapon from his waist does not pose any actual, sudden or imminent danger to the
life and limb of Siega. The mere drawing of a knife by the victim does not constitute unlawful
aggression as the peril sought to be avoided by the accused is uncertain, premature and speculative.
Justifying Circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO BAGABAY y MACARAEG,

Accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Alfredo M. Guevarra, Jr. (Guevarra) unloaded his passengers in front of Dr. Ramon De
Santos National High School. While Guevarra was giving his passengers their change, Armando
alighted from his tricycle armed with a kitchen knife. Without warning, Armando grabbed Guevarra's
shoulder and stabbed the latter twice in rapid successive motions near the heart. Guevarra got off his
tricycle and tried to run away, but Armando pursued him. When Guevarra collapsed on the road,
Armando took this as an opportunity to stab the former one more time. Armando left thereafter.
Gueverra was taken by bystanders to the Guimba District Hospital where he was pronounced dead on
arrival. Armando asserted self-defense. The RTC ruled that Armando failed to prove that he acted in
self-defense. Other than his bare assertions, he did not present any witness to corroborate his claim.
His only witness, Rolando Jacobe, who was around 12 to 15 meters away, testified that he saw
Armando and Guevarra grappling for a knife while both were standing near the tricycle of Guevarra.
This is diametrically opposed to the testimony of Armando that Guevarra was sitting astride his
motorcycle when they were grappling for the knife. The RTC also declared that treachery attended
the commission of the crime. It considered the fact that Guevarra was stabbed from behind. Further,
it ruled that the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack were deliberately employed so that
the victim would be deprived of any means to resist it. The CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision in toto.

ISSUE: Whether Armando should not be criminally liable for the death of the victim on
the ground that he only acted in self-defense.

HELD: No. The Court held that first, there is no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. For
unlawful aggression to be present, there must be real danger to life or personal safety. Accordingly,
the accused must establish the concurrence of the three elements of unlawful aggression, namely:
(a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or,
at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. None of the elements of unlawful
aggression was proven by the defense. Guevarra's act of pointing or cursing at Armando, not
followed by other acts, is insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression.

Second, in the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the second requisite of self-
defense could not have been present. Records show that Guevarra was unarmed and it was Armando
who approached the former armed with a knife. Assuming that Guevarra had indeed shouted and
cursed at him and drew out a knife, it was still not reasonably necessary for Armando to stab the
victim. Furthermore, Armando stabbed the victim three times, the last wound inflicted when Guevarra
was already on the ground asking for help.

Lastly, the third requisite requires the person mounting a defense to be reasonably blameless. He or
she must not have antagonized or incited the attacker into launching an assault. In this case, records
show that it was actually Armando who sought out and approached the victim with a knife. It was
Armando who initiated the assault.
Justifying Circumstances PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICKY

GONZALES Y COS AND RENE

GONZALES Y COS, Accused, RICKY GONZALES Y COS, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 218946, September 5, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: In the morning of January 23, 2005, Bobby and his nephew, Rene, were outside the house
of a certain Leo taunting each other. The confrontation led to Rene punching Bobby who failed to
retaliate. Ricky, the brother of Rene, then emerged from the plaza and without a warning stabbed
Bobby three times with a knife. Bobby was hit at his left forearm, middle of his chest, and at his
stomach. Ricky and Rene then escaped together. The doctor who attended Bobby at the hospital
testified that the latter suffered four injuries on his body, the most fatal of which was the one in his
stomach. Bobby then died while in surgery. The investigator of the stabbing incident also testified
that Barangay Kagawad Dario Gomez went to Masbate City Police Station and turned over the
custody of Ricky who voluntarily surrendered to him. In the version of the defense, Ricky admitted
that he stabbed and killed the victim, but only because it was necessary to defend himself. According
to him, at around 11:00 PM of January 22, 2005, he arrived at a benefit dance in the plaza. He got
tired of dancing at around 1:00 AM of January 23, 2005, and decided to leave. He then passed by the
house of Bobby and noticed that the latter is staring at him in a bad way. Ricky claimed that he saw
Bobby was about to strike him with knife, but he was fortunate enough to stabbed him first. When
someone fired a warning shot, he ran away but later voluntarily surrendered. The RTC found Ricky
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It held that since there was treachery in Ricky’s sudden
and unexpected attack, the killing was qualified to murder. The CA dismissed the appeal and held
that there is no question that Ricky killed Bobby. It also affirmed the ruling of the RTC that there is
treachery as Bobby was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself.

ISSUE: Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense is established.

HELD: No. The Court held that the accused has already admitted that he stabbed and killed the
victim, but he advances that his actions were necessary to defend himself.

The Court explained that a plea of self-defense admits the commission of the act charged as a crime;
accordingly, the onus probandi falls on the accused to prove that such killing was justified — failure
to discharge which renders the act punishable. Thus, to exonerate himself, the accused must
establish:
(i) that there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (ii) that the means employed to prevent or repel
such aggression were reasonable; and (iii) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. Of
the three, unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement; absent such element, self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated.

Here, the records of the case indubitably show that Ricky failed to establish that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of Bobby. The Court agrees with the CA that Ricky’s claim was self-serving,
without any corroborating evidence. He did not even give any explanation on why Bobby allegedly
attacked him with a knife.

Justifying Circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LORENZO RAYTOS Y ESPINO,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 225623, June 7, 2017
(First Division)

FACTS: Lorenzo Raytos y Espino was charged with Murder did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, attack, assault and stab David Araza with the use of a short-bladed weapon, which
accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting and hitting the victim fatal stab
wounds
on the different parts of his body, which wounds caused his death. On February 1, 2010, at around
8:00 in the evening, he was coming from his cousin's place, when he was invited by Indo Sabio to
partake on some leftovers from the fiesta and to join them as a dance session was being held at
around 11:30 in the evening, David Araza passed by Purok 1 and was approached by Edgar Papiona,
and the two danced. After they danced, the victim approached the table where Anita Sabio was
seated and invited her to dance, but the latter refused After dancing, the victim approached again
Raytos' table and asked who was brave enough while drawing a knife tucked in the waistband of his
pants. Raytos tried to escape by moving backwards and, while doing so, he got hold of the victim's
right hand. Raytos twisted the victim's arm, got hold of the knife and then stabbed the victim several
times on the chest. He delivered three (3) successive stabbing blows in a quick and swift manner
because he panicked. He ran away immediately and surrendered himself to the barangay officials and
they proceeded to the police station. On the other hand, according to the version of the prosecution,
a witness saw Raytos stab the victim when the latter turned his back from Raytos while dancing.
Papiona recalled that he saw Raytos hold the right back shoulder of the victim and stab the latter's
back several times with the use of a knife measuring 8 inches in length. He did not hear any
argument from both the victim and Raytos prior to the incident. Three days later, the victim died. The
RTC found Raytos guilty of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery. Raytos appealed to the CA.
The CA affirmed Raytos' conviction.

ISSUE: Whether the elements of self-defense was sufficiently established.

HELD: No. The Court held that a plea of self-defense admits the commission of the act charged as a
crime; accordingly, the onus probandi falls on the accused to prove that such killing was justified -
failure to discharge which renders the act punishable. Thus, to exonerate himself, the accused must
establish: (i) that there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (ii) that the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (iii) that there was lack of sufficient
provocation on his part. Of the three, unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement; absent such
element, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated. The Court explained
that unlawful aggression is predicated on an actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger - not
merely a threatening or intimidating action.

In People v. Escarlos, the Court ruled that the mere drawing of a knife by the victim does not
constitute unlawful aggression, whether actual or imminent, as the peril sought to be avoided by the
accused was both premature and speculative. When an unlawful aggression that has begun has
ceased to exist, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former
aggressor. Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting defense of one's
self.

Here, Raytos admitted that after obtaining possession of the weapon, he no longer had any reason to
stab Araza. Thus, based on his own statements, Raytos overstepped the acceptable boundaries of
self- preservation when he deliberately inflicted fatal injuries on Araza, even when the purported
aggression had already ceased. By killing Araza, Raytos was no longer acting in self-defense but in
retaliation against the former.

Justifying circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

PAUL DURAN, JR. Y MIRABUENO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017
(Second Division)

FACTS: Duran is a peddler of fish. While on his way to buy fish in Parañaque, he was blocked by two
persons one of which is the victim Gilbert Grimaldo. Grimaldo poked a gun at him, and said that they
only needed his money. When Grimaldo attempted to get the money from his belt bag, he was able
to hold the victim's right hand which was then holding the gun. Grimaldo then used his left hand to
box his nape. Then they wrestled for the possession of the gun for more or less thirty seconds. Then
Duran was able to take the gun away from Grimaldo. When Grimaldo moved backward, he pulled the
trigger
of the gun and hit Grimaldo. At that time, he was worried that the other guy might retaliate and
that's the reason why he was able to pull the trigger of the .38 caliber revolver gun. A case was filed
against Duran where he raised the defense of self-defense. The RTC found Duran guilty of the crime
of Murder, qualified by treachery. This RTC held that there was no unlawful aggression and that
assuming that Grimaldo and his unidentified companion really tried to hold-up Duran, the latter's
testimony shows that the aggression had already ceased when he (Duran) was able to successfully
take the gun from the possession of Grimaldo. Moreover, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is
present in this case because accused shot the victim in a manner that the latter would not be able to
defend himself, and the location and severity of the wounds inflicted on the victim belies the claim of
self-defense. The CA affirmed Duran’s conviction in toto.

ISSUE: Whether Duran acted in self-defense.

HELD: No. The Court held that unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense.
Without unlawful aggression, self-defense cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other
elements are present.

The Court explained that unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or
imminent danger - not merely threatening and intimidating action." It is present "only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life.

Here, Duran was unable to prove the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Even
if Duran's account of an attempted robbery against him is to be believed, his testimony also shows
that Grimaldo, albeit the initial aggressor, ceased to be the aggressor as Duran had successfully
wrested the weapon from him. Thereafter, Duran shot the gun at Grimaldo four times; three of which
hit Grimaldo on vital parts of his body. At this moment, actions of the accused were already done in
retaliation and not self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression initiated by the victim had already
ceased when the accused attacked him; in self- defense, the aggression from the victim is continuing.

Circumstances affecting criminal liability> Exempting circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RENATO BACOLOT Y IDLISAN,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: An Information for the crime of murder was filed against Renato Bacolot y Idlasan for
assaulting Rodolfo Jabayjay resulting to the latter’s death. According to the prosecution, on May 14,
2008, accused Renato was having a drinking spree with some other companions, including Rodolfo
who subsequently joined them. During that time, accused Renato suddently took a scythe from
Arnulfo’s (Rodolfo’s brother) waist and assaulted Rodolfo who was then singing with his face turned
towards the televsion. Rodolfo suffered four stabs, one of which caused fatal wound on his neck. As a
defense, acccused Renato pleaded insanity. His lone witness, Dr. Genotiva, testified that she had
examined Renato twice, once in 2005 and again after his arrest on August 15, 2008. She diagnosed
Renato with a full-blown psychosis and schizophrenia. The RTC covicted Renato of the crime of
murder, ruling that the element of treachery was present. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. On
appeal before the SC, accused Renato claims exemption from criminal liability due to his alleged
insanity immediately prior to, during and immediately after hacking Rodolfo. According to him, he was
completely deprived of intelligence, making his criminal act involuntary.
ISSUE: Whether the accused Renato is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of
insanity.

HELD: No. Article 12 of the RPC provides for one of the circumstances which will exempt one from
criminal liability which is when the perpetrator of the act was an imbecile or insane, unless the latter
has acted during a lucid interval. This circumstance, however, is not easily available to an accused as
a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under
Article 800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.
It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have
committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or
proof of an accused's insanity, must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense which he is charged.

For the defense to be successfully invoked, the accused must show that: (1) he was completely
deprived of intelligence; and (2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be manifest at the
time or immediately before the commission of the offense. Unfortunately in this case, the testimony
of Dr. Genotiva refers to the time he was examined in 2005, which is three years prior to the incident
and in August 15, 2008, which is three months after the commission of the crime. The testimony of
Dr. Genotiva failed to show the mental condition of the accused at the time or immediately before the
commission of the offense.

Exempting circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ESMERALDO “JAY” AMURAO Y

TEJERO, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 229514, July 28, 2020
(First Division)

FACTS: In February 2013, the NBI received a report from the International Justice Mission (IJM), a
non-governmental organization involved in anti-trafficking in person project, that Esmeraldo Amurao
was involved in prostituting women in Pampanga, some of whom are minors. 2 NBI agents went to
Angeles City to verify the report. As poseur customers, they went to Natalia Hotel where they met
Amurao, who was selling cigarette and Viagra in the area. The agents inquired from him regarding
the minor girls he was selling. Amurao told them that he could provide girls at P1,500 each. The
agents then asked Amurao to provide them with 6 girls the following night. Thereafter, the agents
returned to their office and informed their superior about their operation. Special Investigator (SI)
Henry Roxas organized a team for rescue and entrapment operations. The team also coordinated with
the DSWD and requested them to form part of the support group. Since the NBI failed to secure an
arrest warrant, they decided to proceed with the entrapment operation and prepared the entrapment
money worth P9,000. When they arrived at the area, Amurao offered them some girls but they
insisted that they be given minor girls. Minutes later, Amurao, with Marlyn Valencia, arrived with 6
minor girls. The NBI agents requested the girls to go inside their van. SI Roxas then handed Amurao
the marked money and the latter deducted P1,000 as his commission. Amurao gave the rest of the
money to BBB, who was acting as the leader of the girls. Once the girls were all inside the van, SI
Roxas signaled the rest of the team and proceeded with the rescue operation. Amurao was arrested
and the marked money was recover from him and BBB. In his defense, Amurao claims that the
agents gave him P500 to look for girls on Feb. 19, 2013 but failed. On Feb 20, 2013, Amurao alleged
that he passed by Natalia Hotel and saw the agents again. Amurao then contacted Valencia to look
for girls. When they introduced the girls to the agents, the girls and Valencia boarded the van. The
agents handed P9,000 to Amurao who took P1,000 as his tip and handed the remaining to the girls.
The RTC convicted Amurao of Trafficking in Persons in connection with the trafficking of AAA who
was already of majority age at the time of the commission of the offense and of Qualified Trafficking
in Person in connection with the trafficking of minors BBB and CCC. Amurao appealed his conviction.
He interposed the defense of instigation. The CA affirmed the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether Amurao was induced by the NBI agents to commit the crime Trafficking
in Persons and Qualified Trafficking in Persons and, therefore, should be acquitted from
the same.

RULING: Yes. In People v. Hirang, instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the
employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in
instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into
committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates
in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct.

Here, there is no indication that Amurao was merely forced or induced to commit the crime. His
defense is belied by his own actions in readily agreeing to procure girls for the NBI agents/poseur-
buyers and in his active recruitment of the victims. Thus, Amurao’s defense of instigation has no
merit. Acting on the report from the IJM, the NBI conducted a valid entrapment. They merely devised
a scheme to facilitate Amurao’s illegal activities in order to arrest him.

Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RENATO BACOLOT Y IDLISAN,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: An Information for the crime of murder was filed against Renato Bacolot y Idlasan for
assaulting Rodolfo Jabayjay resulting to the latter’s death. According to the prosecution, on May 14,
2008, accused Renato was having a drinking spree with some other companions, including Rodolfo
who subsequently joined them. During that time, accused Renato suddently took a scythe from
Arnulfo’s (Rodolfo’s brother) waist and assaulted Rodolfo who was then singing with his face turned
towards the televsion. Rodolfo suffered four stabs, one of which caused fatal wound on his neck. As a
defense, acccused Renato pleaded insanity. His lone witness, Dr. Genotiva, testified that she had
examined Renato twice, once in 2005 and again after his arrest on August 15, 2008. She diagnosed
Renato with a full-blown psychosis and schizophrenia. The RTC covicted Renato of the crime of
murder, ruling that the element of treachery was present. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. On
appeal before the SC, accused Renato claims exemption from criminal liability due to his alleged
insanity immediately prior to, during and immediately after hacking Rodolfo. According to him, he was
completely deprived of intelligence, making his criminal act involuntary.

ISSUE: Whether the killing was attended with treachery.

HELD: No. The Court held that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to
directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. To qualify as an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the
assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or
forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving
the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself.

In the case at bar, the following circumstances negate the presence of treachery: First, the stabbing
incident happened during a drinking spree in which accused-appellant was a part. He did not
deliberately seek the presence of the victim as he was already in the same vicinity as the latter when
he hacked the victim. Second, in killing the victim, accused-appellant did not even use his own weapon
– he merely took a scythe from Arnulfo, who was sitting beside him. In a similar case, the Court held
that treachery cannot be presumed merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. The suddenness
of an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill,
so long as the decision was made suddenly and the victim's helpless position was accidental. Based on
the first and second circumstances abovementioned, accused-appellant's decision to attack the victim
was more of a sudden impulse on his part than a planned decision.

Aggravating Circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICKY GONZALES Y COS AND RENE
GONZALES Y COS, Accused, RICKY GONZALES Y COS, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 218946, September 5, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: In the morning of January 23, 2005, Bobby and his nephew, Rene, were outside the house
of a certain Leo taunting each other. The confrontation led to Rene punching Bobby who failed to
retaliate. Ricky, the brother of Rene, then emerged from the plaza and without a warning stabbed
Bobby three times with a knife. Bobby was hit at his left forearm, middle of his chest, and at his
stomach. Ricky and Rene then escaped together. The doctor who attended Bobby at the hospital
testified that the latter suffered four injuries on his body, the most fatal of which was the one in his
stomach. Bobby then died while in surgery. The investigator of the stabbing incident also testified
that Barangay Kagawad Dario Gomez went to Masbate City Police Station and turned over the
custody of Ricky who voluntarily surrendered to him. In the version of the defense, Ricky admitted
that he stabbed and killed the victim, but only because it was necessary to defend himself. According
to him, at around 11:00 PM of January 22, 2005, he arrived at a benefit dance in the plaza. He got
tired of dancing at around 1:00 AM of January 23, 2005, and decided to leave. He then passed by the
house of Bobby and noticed that the latter is staring at him in a bad way. Ricky claimed that he saw
Bobby was about to strike him with knife, but he was fortunate enough to stabbed him first. When
someone fired a warning shot, he ran away but later voluntarily surrendered. The RTC found Ricky
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It held that since there was treachery in Ricky’s sudden
and unexpected attack, the killing was qualified to murder. The CA dismissed the appeal and held
that there is no question that Ricky killed Bobby. It also affirmed the ruling of the RTC that there is
treachery as Bobby was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself.

ISSUE: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery is established.

HELD: No. The Court held that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to
directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the
assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or
forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving
the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself.

Accordingly, the prosecution was unable to prove that Ricky intentionally sought the victim for the
purpose of killing him. Well-settled is the rule that the circumstances which would qualify a killing to
murder must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself. There must be a showing, first and
foremost, that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and
forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to
himself. Indeed, it does not always follow that if the attack was sudden and unexpected, it should
necessarily be deemed as an attack attended with treachery. In fact, the wounds of the victim show
that the attack was frontal, which indicates that the deceased was not totally without opportunity to
defend himself. Moreover, the
stabbing, based on the evidence, appears to be the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the
moment arising from the commotion between Bobby and Rene which Ricky witnessed, rather than
from a deliberated act of the will. As far as the prosecution’s evidence is concerned, it was only able
to establish the following: (a) a commotion was caused when Rene and Bobby were taunting each
other;
(b) Rene punched Bobby and (c) Ricky went out of the plaza and stabbed Bobby. Considering the
foregoing, it was not proven that Ricky deliberately and consciously employed means, methods, or
forms in the execution of the criminal act to ensure that Bobby could not defend himself. Thus, it is
not possible to appreciate treachery against Ricky.

Aggravating Circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LORENZO RAYTOS Y ESPINO,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 225623, June 7, 2017
(First Division)

FACTS: Lorenzo Raytos y Espino was charged with Murder did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, attack, assault and stab David Araza with the use of a short-bladed weapon, which
accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting and hitting the victim fatal stab
wounds on the different parts of his body, which wounds caused his death. On February 1, 2010, at
around 8:00 in the evening, he was in Purok 1, Brgy. Nagcaduha Villareal, Samar, coming from his
cousin's place, when he was invited by Indo Sabio to partake on some leftovers from the fiesta and to
join them as a dance session was being held at around 11:30 in the evening, David Araza (victim)
passed by Purok 1 and was approached by Edgar Papiona, and the two danced. After they danced,
the victim approached the table where Anita Sabio was seated and invited her to dance, but the latter
refused After dancing, the victim approached again Raytos' table and asked who was brave enough
while drawing a knife tucked in the waistband of his pants. Raytos tried to escape by moving
backwards and, while doing so, he got hold of the victim's right hand. Raytos twisted the victim's
arm, got hold of the knife and then stabbed the victim several times on the chest. He delivered three
(3) successive stabbing blows in a quick and swift manner because he panicked. He ran away
immediately and surrendered himself to the barangay officials and they proceeded to the police
station. On the other hand, according to the version of the prosecution, a witness saw Raytos stab
the victim when the latter turned his back from Raytos while dancing. Papiona recalled that he saw
Raytos hold the right back shoulder of the victim and stab the latter's back several times with the use
of a knife measuring 8 inches in length. He did not hear any argument from both the victim and
Raytos prior to the incident. Three days later, the victim died. The RTC found Raytos guilty of the
crime of Murder qualified by treachery. Raytos appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed Raytos'
conviction.

ISSUE: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently established.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that treachery or alevosia, is present when the offender adopts means,
methods, or forms in the execution of the felony that ensure its commission without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Alevosia is characterized by a
deliberate, sudden and unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the
victim a chance to defend himself or repel the assault and without risk to the assailant.

Here, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were unwavering as to the manner of killing
- that Raytos suddenly stabbed Araza from the back while holding the latter's shoulder. Further, that
there were other people around that could have lent their help to Araza is inconsequential as
treachery considers only the victim's means of defense at the time of the attack. Thus, so long as the
accused deliberately employed means to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself
from retaliation by the victim, treachery can be properly appreciated.
Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

PAUL DURAN, JR. Y MIRABUENO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017
(Second Division)

FACTS: Duran is a peddler of fish. While on his way to buy fish in Parañaque, he was blocked by two
persons one of which is the victim Gilbert Grimaldo. Grimaldo poked a gun at him, and said that they
only needed his money. When Grimaldo attempted to get the money from his belt bag, he was able
to hold the victim's right hand which was then holding the gun. Grimaldo then used his left hand to
box his nape. Then they wrestled for the possession of the gun for more or less thirty seconds. Then
Duran was able to take the gun away from Grimaldo. When Grimaldo moved backward, he pulled the
trigger of the gun and hit Grimaldo. At that time, he was worried that the other guy might retaliate
and that's the reason why he was able to pull the trigger of the .38 caliber revolver gun. A case was
filed against Duran where he raised the defense of self-defense. The RTC found Duran guilty of the
crime of Murder, qualified by treachery. This RTC held that there was no unlawful aggression and that
assuming that Grimaldo and his unidentified companion really tried to hold-up Duran, the latter's
testimony shows that the aggression had already ceased when he (Duran) was able to successfully
take the gun from the possession of Grimaldo. Moreover, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is
present in this case because accused shot the victim in a manner that the latter would not be able to
defend himself, and the location and severity of the wounds inflicted on the victim belies the claim of
self-defense. The CA affirmed Duran’s conviction in toto.

ISSUE: Whether the crime is qualified by treachery.

HELD: No. Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Court explained that to qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant
employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of
any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself.

Here, the confrontation between Duran and Grimaldo appears to have been a chance encounter. It
was also not proven that Duran deliberately and consciously employed means, methods, or forms in
the execution of the criminal act to ensure that Grimaldo could not defend himself.

Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARMANDO BAGABAY y MACARAEG,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Alfredo M. Guevarra, Jr. (Guevarra) unloaded his passengers in front of Dr. Ramon De
Santos National High School. While Guevarra was giving his passengers their change, Armando
alighted from his tricycle armed with a kitchen knife. Without warning, Armando grabbed Guevarra's
shoulder and stabbed the latter twice in rapid successive motions near the heart. Guevarra got off his
tricycle and tried to run away, but Armando pursued him. When Guevarra collapsed on the road,
Armando took this
as an opportunity to stab the former one more time. Armando left thereafter. Gueverra was taken by
bystanders to the Guimba District Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Armando
asserted self-defense. The RTC ruled that Armando failed to prove that he acted in self-defense.
Other than his bare assertions, he did not present any witness to corroborate his claim. His only
witness, Rolando Jacobe, who was around 12 to 15 meters away, testified that he saw Armando and
Guevarra grappling for a knife while both were standing near the tricycle of Guevarra. This is
diametrically opposed to the testimony of Armando that Guevarra was sitting astride his motorcycle
when they were grappling for the knife. The RTC also declared that treachery attended the
commission of the crime. It considered the fact that Guevarra was stabbed from behind. Further, it
ruled that the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack were deliberately employed so that the
victim would be deprived of any means to resist it. The CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision in toto.

ISSUE: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present.

HELD: No. The Court held that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and
thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. In order to appreciate treachery, both
elements must be present. It is not enough that the attack was "sudden," "unexpected," and
"without any warning or provocation." There must also be a showing that the offender consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime
which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself.

Here, although the attack was sudden and unexpected, the prosecution did not prove that Armando
deliberately chose a particular mode of attack that purportedly ensured the execution of the criminal
purpose without any risk to himself arising from the defense that the victim might offer.

Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO B. SIEGA, Accused-

Appellant.
G.R. No. 213273, June 27, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Leonardo B. Siega (Siega) was charged with the crime of Murder. He pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged and alleged the defense of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He averred
that when he was about to enter his house, he heard a sound coming from the feeder road facing his
residence. When Siega turned to the source of the noise, he saw Pacenciano Bitoy (Bitoy), rushing
towards him and shouting at him to get out of his house so that they could end their grudge against
each other. As Bitoy was nearing him, Siega saw the former attempting to draw the bolo that was
wrapped on his waist. Scared by Bitoy's actions, Siega immediately grabbed unto the bolo that was
then beside him and hacked Bitoy. Siega inflicted several injuries on Bitoy, before the latter retreated
and ran away. On the other hand, the prosecution alleged that Bitoy and his friend Alingasa were
walking on their way home when Siega armed with a bolo suddenly approached them and asked who
would dare challenge him. Bitoy replied that no one would dare challenge him. Siega then walked
towards the direction of the Purok Center. Suddenly, Siega turned back, asked Bitoy whether he was
the tough guy of Jagna, and stabbed the latter with a long bolo on the left part of his chest.
Surprised by the incident, Bitoy tried to flee but Siega ran after him and continued his assault.
Alingasa saw Siega continue to hack Bitoy even if the latter was already lying on the ground. Due to
the severity of his wounds, Bitoy died that afternoon. The postmortem report of Dr. Mosot showed
that Bitoy sustained three (3) hack wounds on his face, which caused his right eyeball to pop out;
two (2) hack wounds on his forearms; and three (3) deep penetrating stab wounds on his chest
cavity, which could have caused his immediate death due to hemorrhage or massive bleeding and
loss of blood. The RTC found Siega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s Decision with modifications.
ISSUE: Whether the killing by Siega of Bitoy is attended by treachery.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
against an unarmed and unsuspecting victim, who has no chance of defending himself. Here, a
credible eyewitness testified that Siega, armed with a bolo, stabbed Bitoy on the chest several times,
while the latter was merely conversing with Alingasa. That the attack was frontal does not rule out
the existence of treachery; because it was so sudden and unexpected that Bitoy, unarmed and had
no chance to defend himself, was felled down by Siega's repeated hacking blows.

Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LIBERA TO PENTECOSTES y

CRONICO, Accused-appellant
G.R. No. 226158, November 8, 2017
(Second Division)

FACTS: Liberato was charge with the crime of murder in an Information which alleges that the accused,
with treachery, feloniously assault and attack Vivian Briones, a 7-year old minor by submerging
drowning her in water thus causing her instantaneous death. Liberato, as sole witness for the
defense, denied knowing Vivian or any of the children of Angel. He confirmed his presence at the
drinking spree and claimed that he went home alone. The victim’s cousin encountered Liberato at a
plantation where Liberato was seen carrying Vivian on his back and appeared to be headed towards a
nearby body of water. Later that day, Vivian was still missing. An autopsy was subsequently
performed on Vivian's body which revealed drowning as the cause of death. When Liberato was
questioned, he ran away. For Liberato’s part, he explained that he ran because he was afraid of being
shot by one of the investigating officers. The RTC and CA found Liberato guilty of the crime of
Murder, qualified by treachery. Insisting on his innocence, Liberato makes the claim that the CA erred
in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to establish a motive for the killing.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC and CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.

HELD: No. The Court held that Treachery or alevosia is present in the killing of children who, by
reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense.

In People v. Diaz, the Court held that the killing of an eleven (11)-year old was deemed ipso facto
qualified by treachery by reason of the child's "inherent defenselessness." The Court therefore relies
on the Diaz ruling in this case, especially considering that Vivian was murdered at the tender age of
six
(6) years old.

Moreover, in criminal cases, "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does not entail absolute certainty of
the fact that the accused committed the crime, and neither does it exclude the possibility of error.
What is only required is that degree of proof which, after a scrutiny of the facts, produces in an
unprejudiced mind moral certainty of the culpability of the accused.

Here, considering that Liberato was positively identified by two (2) eyewitnesses, coupled with the
other pieces of circumstantial evidence establishing Liberato's authorship of the crime, the Court finds
that the RTC and CA did not err in convicting Liberato despite the lack of evidence showing motive.
Aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SPO2 EDGARDO MENIL Y BONGKIT,

Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 233205, June 26, 2019
(Second Division)
FACTS: SPO2 Edgardo Menil y was charged with the crime of Murder that at or about 1:30 o'clock in
the morning of December 28, 1993 at the ground floor of Sing-Sing Garden and Restaurant,
Villanueva Street, Butuan City, the accused Menil shot with the use of a handgun one Edwin B.
Bagaslao thereby inflicting upon him a gunshot wound on his head which caused his subsequent
death. The prosecution presented three witnesses wherein one Cythia Rose Coloma testified that on
December 28, 1993 at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, she and the victim Edwin B. Bagaslao
were about to leave the Christmas party held at Tip-Topp Disco in Sing-Song Garden Restaurant. As
they were on their way downstairs, Menil pushed Coloma. A heated argument ensued. It appeared
that Menil was looking for the girl who left him on the dance floor and had mistaken Coloma to be
that girl. When the two were already on their path on the sidewalk of the Sing-Sing Garden, Menil
suddenly came from behind and shot the victim. Another witness named Ricardo Oracion Torralba
also testified that Menil ran away after the shooting incident. On the other hand, Menil denied killing
Bagaslao stating that Bagaslao grabbed his revolver and after the grappling, a shot was fired.
Bagaslao fell. The RTC convicted Menil of the crime of Murder. Menil appealed to the CA. CA affirmed
the conviction by the RTC with modifications. The CA ruled that the prosecution witnesses positively
identified Menil as the perpetrator of the crime and it ruled that treachery attended the killing of the
victim. However, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation.

ISSUE Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery was duly established.

HELD: No. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Treachery is never presumed. It is required that
the manner of attack must be shown to have been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime
itself. In the present case, the prosecution was not able to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery.

To qualify the crime to Murder, the following elements of treachery in a given case must be proven:
(a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend
or retaliate; and, (b) said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. It has been
repeatedly held that for treachery to be appreciated, both elements must be present. It is not enough
that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and without any warning or provocation. There must also be
a showing that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and
forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to
himself.

Thus, the accused should only be convicted of the crime of Homicide, not Murder. Here, Menil and
the victim had a heated altercation at the restaurant prior to the killing of the victim by the accused.
It is true that a certain Dodoy had pacified their fight. However, this does not necessarily mean that
at the time the shooting incident happened, they already had cool and level heads since only a short
amount of time had lapsed between the heated altercation and the shooting of the victim.
Immediately after they were pacified by Dodoy, the victim went down the stairs followed by Menil
and upon reaching the sidewalk, Menil immediately shot the victim. Verily, the victim should have still
been aware that there was a possibility of an impending attack as the armed accused was still in the
same area. In the instant case, the Court finds that the second requisite for treachery, i.e., that the
accused deliberately adopted the means of execution was not proven by clear and convincing
evidence by the prosecution. The means of execution used by the accused cannot be said to be
deliberately or consciously adopted since it was more of a result of a sudden impulse due to his
previous heated altercation with the victim than a planned and deliberate action.
>Aggravating Circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. LARRY LUMAHANG Y TALISAY,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 218581, March 27, 2019
(Second Division)

FACTS: On December 14, 2008, around nine o'clock in the evening, Alberto Poraso, Rodel Velitario
and Augusto Pornelos were attending a wake in Joan of Arc Street, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon
City when Lumahang appeared fuming mad. Suddenly, Lumahang approached Pornelos from behind
and stabbed him in a hook motion with knife in his left hand. Pornelos, who was hit on the buttocks,
quickly ran towards an alley. Without warning, Lumahang then turned his ire on Velitario and stabbed
him repeatedly on different parts of his body. Dr. Joseph Palmero, medico-legal examiner of Velitario,
found two (2) stab wounds in the latter's abdomen, one (1) incise wound on the left shoulder and
another on the left posterior thigh. He found multiple abrasions on the Velitario's right collar bone and
on both toes which were presumably caused by a scuffle between said victim and his assailant. It was
determined that the cause of Velitario's death was the multiple stab wounds he sustained on the
abdomen, which among others, hit his left kidney. Dr. Palmero estimated that based on the depth of
the wounds, the assailant was within an arm's length from the victim and that the weapon used was
a bladed knife measuring around eight (8) cm. long. On the other hand, Dr. Engelbert Ednacot of the
Quezon City General Hospital, examining physician of Pornelos, found a stab wound on the latter's
right buttocks, which he concluded to be a non-fatal wound that required treatment for around seven
(7) days. In his medical opinion, the victim was attacked from behind. The RTC and CA convicted
Lumahang for the crime of Murder and Slight Physical Injuries.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that the crime committed is only homicide instead of murder. It is well-
settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the
result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. Thus, when
the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, the findings of the
trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to
ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. The Court has often pronounced that
denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of
the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical
testimony which has the ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the
former is generally held to prevail.

Here, suddenness of the attack by itself, is inadequate to support a finding of treachery. It must be
coupled with proof that the victim was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself against
the attack thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. It is, thus, decisive that the attack was executed in a manner
that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. The Court held that treachery was
not present because the attack was frontal, and hence, the victim had opportunity to defend himself.
While a frontal attack, by itself, does not negate the existence of treachery, when the same is
considered along with the other circumstances, like the attack not being unexpected, it already
creates a reasonable doubt in the existence of the qualifying circumstance.
Conspiracy and proposal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AQUIL PILPA Y DIPAZ, Accused-

Appellant.
G.R. No. 225336, September 5, 2018
(Second Division)

FACTS: Aquil Pilpa, together with “JR” were accused of murder. On August 23, 2003, an eyewitness
to the prosecution, Leonila, a barangay tanod, who was present when the stabbing incident occurred
stood as a witness. She said that she saw JR stabbed the victim Alde on the chest with a big knife
while Pilpa, the appellant, was positioned at the back of Leonila. After "JR" stabbed Alde, appellant,
who was a mere arms-length away from Leonila, poised to thrust Alde as well. Alde, who was able to
run away from his assailants where he was chased by assailants. He was thereafter brought to Ospital
ng Maynila. While Alde was brought to the hospital, tanod Leonila, accompanied by the police, one of
them, PO3 Benedict Cruz, caught up appellant who was found in a house near the railroad. She
identified appellant as one of the group. Appellant was then arrested in the house of JR and brought
to the hospital as it is the standard operating procedure to provide medical attention to suspects.
When appellant was brought to the hospital, the victim Alde positively identified appellant as one of
those who stabbed him. Unfortunately, the victim thereafter, died due to cardiac arrest. Pilpa was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. Although he was not the one who
stabbed the victim, he was convicted for murder as the court found that conspiracy was present and
ruled that all of the assailants were liable as co-principals. The RTC ruled that conspiracy was present
and that the assailants were liable as co-principals. The CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused constitute conspiracy.

HELD: Yes. The Court ruled that it is well-established that conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy is the unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. There is conspiracy if
at the time of the commission of the offense, the acts of two or more accused show that they were
animated by the same criminal purpose and were united in their execution, or where the acts of the
malefactors indicate a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose, and a concerted action.

The Court explained that tt is true that the elements of conspiracy must be proved by the same kind
of proof — proof beyond reasonable doubt — necessary to establish the physical acts constituting the
crime itself. However, this is not to say that direct proof of such conspiracy is always required. The
existence of conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence; nor is it necessary to
prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the crime charged. Indeed, conspiracy is very
rarely proved by direct evidence of an explicit agreement to commit the crime. Thus, the rule is well-
settled that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, where such conduct reasonably shows community of criminal purpose or
design.

In the present case, both the RTC and CA correctly inferred from the collective acts of the assailants
that conspiracy exists despite the absence of direct evidence to the effect. As the prosecution
correctly argued: To prove conspiracy, it is not needed that a meeting between the perpetrators be
proven. Such conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct before and immediately after the act
of the people involved. The conduct of appellant and "JR" in approaching the group of Alde, stabbing him
and running after him, indubitably shows that they had agreed to kill him. After the incident, appellant
was also found to be in "JR"s home. It is contrary to human experience and logic to be present at the
home of a friend who had just stabbed another without being aware of such occurrence as appellant
alleges.
Conspiracy and proposal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO SOLAR Y DUMBRIQUE,

Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 225595, August 06, 2019
(En Banc)

FACTS: Ma. Theresa testified that on March 9, 2008, she decided to follow her husband who left the
house to get his cellphone from Rolando. Along the way, she saw Rolando and Mark Kenneth hit
Joseph with a baseball bat on his nape. When Joseph fell down, the two simultaneously ganged up
on him. She then shouted for help and the assailants ran away. Immediately, Joseph was rushed to
the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. According to Dr. Nulud, the death resulted from
traumatic injuries on the brain caused by a blunt force applied on the head of the victim. The
postmortem examination revealed two external injuries on the frontal region or in the forehead,
which was a contusion, and a healing abrasion on the left infra scapular region. Also, there was a
subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhage on the cerebral hemisphere of the brain or "doon xxx sa
dalawang lobes ng brain ng victim. Rolando denied the accusation and claimed that he was attending
a wake on the night of March 8, 2008, from 11:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. the following day. Joseph was
also there drinking and playing cara y cruz with his group. After a while, Joseph approached him and
offered to pawn a cellphone in exchange of cash. However, he refused because he also needed
money. On his way home, he met Joseph who, upon seeing him, drew out a kitchen knife and tried to
stab him thrice. The RTC found Rolando guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. The CA
found Ma. Theresa's testimony credible and sufficient to establish the identity and culpability of
Rolando. The CA also held that conspiracy may be deduced from the conspirators' conduct before,
during and after the commission of the crime indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and
community of interests — that the facts of the present case reveal such concerted action to achieve
the purpose of killing Joseph. Nevertheless, the CA downgraded the offense from Murder to
Homicide, holding that the Information did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances
describing how treachery attended the killing.

ISSUE: Whether the assailants’ collective acts constitute conspiracy.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that both the RTC and CA correctly inferred from the collective acts of the
assailants that conspiracy exists despite the absence of direct evidence to the effect.

The Court explained that it is well-established that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is the
unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. There is conspiracy if at the time of the
commission of the offense, the acts of two or more accused show that they were animated by the
same criminal purpose and were united in their execution, or where the acts of the malefactors
indicate a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose and a concerted action.

While it is true that the elements of conspiracy must be proved by the same kind of proof — proof
beyond reasonable doubt — necessary to establish the physical acts constituting the crime itself, this
is not to say that direct proof of such conspiracy is always required. The existence of conspiracy need
not, at all times, be established by direct evidence. Nor is it necessary to prove prior agreement between
the accused to commit the crime charged. Indeed, conspiracy is very rarely proved by direct evidence
of an explicit agreement to commit the crime. The rule is well-settled that conspiracy may be inferred
from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, where such
conduct reasonably shows community of criminal purpose or design.

Hence, once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-
principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the
commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all. In this case, it is therefore inconsequential
whether Rolando delivered a fatal blow or not.
Conspiracy and Proposal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDDIE OLAZO,

MIGUEL CORBIS, CHARITO FERNANDEZ and ROGELIO LASCONIA,
accused, CHARITO FERNANDEZ, Accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 220761, October 3, 2016
(First Division)

FACTS: Rogelio Lasconia along with several others planned to rob the spouses Erlinda and Nicanor
Vallecera inside their home in Leyte. They agreed that accused Dionesia Lasconia, then employed as
a stay-out house help of the spouses, would assist them by helping them get access inside the house
undetected. During the first meeting, accused Rogelio Lasconia and Rommel Escobio were present
together with accused-appellant Miguel Corbis. On the second meeting, accused-appellant Miguel
Corbis, and Charito Fernandez attended the planning. The group informed accused Dionesia Lasconia
that they would push through with their plan on the night the crime happened. Despite being a
Sunday and her rest day, Dionesia returned to the house of the spouses Vallecera at around five
o'clock in the afternoon and waited for the arrival of her cohorts. As agreed, she left the back gate
open to allow her cohorts to enter the compound. As soon as Dionesia heard sounds near the back
portion of the house, she immediately opened the kitchen door and allowed accused Rogelio
Lasconia, Rommel Escobio and Eddie Fernandez, all of whom were then wearing masks, to enter the
house. When Erlinda Vallecera opened the master's bedroom door and was immediately accosted by
the three intruders. Eddie Fernandez then pointed a gun at Erlinda Vallecera and grabbed her. The
three accused forced Erlinda to open the vault and then they took away at least one hundred
thousand pesos in cash and several pieces of jewelry. After getting everything that they could easily
cart away, Eddie and Rommel brought Erlinda into the comfort room where Rommel slashed Erlinda’s
throat using a samurai he found inside Erlinda’s office. Rogelio then entered the comfort room and
stabbed Erlinda in her neck using a long knife. Finally, the three accused then hogtied Dionesia to
make it appear that she had no part in the robbery and then exited the house. An Information was
filed with the RTC against the accused and Charito for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The RTC
convicted Charito, together with Rogelio Lasconia, Eddie Olazo, and Miguel Corbis, of the crime
charged.

ISSUE: Whether there was insufficient evidence to prove that Charito participated in the
planning stages of the crime.

HELD: No. The Court explained that there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is present
when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act
which produces the crime. In proving conspiracy, direct evidence is not indispensable as its existence
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime.

In the case, the candid testimony of state witness Joseph unmistakably produces a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimony given by Joseph that Charito was present during the meetings, and
that Charito was the one who hired him and paid him for his services proves that Charito was present
before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Indeed, there was conspiracy between the
malefactors. Here, Joseph positively identified Charito and declared that he saw him during the initial
planning of the commission of the crime and noted Charito's express agreement thereto. Joseph also
testified that he saw Charito, when he brought the accused near the house of the spouses Vallecera
and again upon their return to the drop-off area almost an hour later. It was also established that
Charito paid Joseph for the use of his motorcycle two (2) days after the commission of the crime and
that he was threatened by Charito should the former "squeal" on them.
Conspiracy and proposal

MANSUE NERY LUKBAN, Petitioner,

vs. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO¬MORALES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 238563, February 12, 2020
(First Division)

FACTS: This case arose from the so-called "chopper scam" that involved the procurement of second- hand
light police operational helicopters (LPOHs) for use of the Philippine National Police (PNP). During the time
material to this case, Lukban was the Chief of the Management Division of the PNP Directorate for
Comptrollership.

Following two failed biddings and unsuccessful negotiated procurement of three (3) LPOHs based on
prescribed standard specifications, Request for Quotation was issued. It was intended for the PNP's
procurement, through its Negotiation Committee, of the supply and delivery of one (1) fully-equipped and
two (2) standard LPOHs, through negotiated procurement. The PNP Inspection and Acceptance Committee
(IAC) vouched for the LPOHs' conformity to the NAPOLCOM specifications, thus Inspection Report Form was
prepared declaring that the LPOHs were in good condition and conformed with NAPOLCOM specifications.
Yet, an investigation of the subject transactions later revealed that the LPOHs did not meet specifications by
the NAPOLCOM. Further, during the course of the inquisition, it was discovered that the LPOHs were hardly
brand new and the choppers were actually pre-owned by then First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. The
Ombudsman found Lukban, et.al administratively liable and likewise ordered the filing of Informations
against them for crimes relative to the procurement process. CA dismissed Lukban's petition for review, and
sustained his administrative liability.

ISSUE: Whether there is conspiracy.

HELD: No. The Court held that for conspiracy to be appreciated, it must be clearly shown that there was a
conscious design to commit an offense; conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality
on the part of cohorts. Conspiracy is never presumed . As applied to the instant case, there is a sheer
dearth of evidence on Lukban's participation in the alleged conspiracy to defraud the government. While the
Ombudsman’s factual findings in their entirety tend to demonstrate a sequence of irregularities in the
procurement of the LPOHs, this does not ipso facto translate into a conspiracy between each and every
person involved in the procurement process.

The pronouncements of the Court in PNP-CIDG v. Villafuerte, a case involving the same factual backdrop,
find full application in the instant case, to wit: In the first place, conspiracy as a means of incurring liability
is strictly confined to criminal cases; even assuming that the records indicate the existence of a felonious
scheme, the administrative liability of a person allegedly involved in such scheme cannot be established
through conspiracy, considering that one's administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal
liability. Thus, in administrative cases, the only inquiry in determining liability is simply whether the
respondent, through his individual actions, committed the charges against him that render him
administratively liable.

Execution and service of sentence>Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA No. 9344, as
amended)

CICL XXX, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and GLENN REDOQUERIO,
respondents.
G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019
(Second Division)

FACTS: Glenn Redoquerio (Redoquerio) was sent by his mother to buy iced tea powder. While he was at
the store, Glenn heard somebody say “Yan si Glenn anak ni Purok Leader na humuli sa atin nuon.” He
looked back and saw CICL XXX, a minor at 17 years old, Christopher Puyo (Puyo) and Jayjay Narag
(Narag). CICL XXX suddenly poked a gun at the face of Redoquerio. The gun was only about
six (6) inches away from Redoquerio’s face. CICL XXX pulled the trigger several times but the
gun did not fire. CICL XXX then hit the left temple and top of the head of Redoquerio with the
gun. Puyo and Narag held the arms of Redoquerio while CICL XXX punched him several times.
Puyo then hit the head of Redoquerio with a stone causing the latter to lose consciousness.
Redoquerio was in coma for seven days and incurred expenses for the treatment of his
injuries as shown by various receipts. CICL XXX however, denied the allegations against him.
That he and his family were having a celebration for the New Year in their residence when
they heard a commotion outside and were told of the mauling incident. His mother went out
first and then CICL XXX saw Reqoquerio and De los Santos mauling Narag. The RTC convicted
CICL XXX of frustrated murder and ordered him to pay moral damages as civil indemnity. The
CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX despite the prosecution’s
failure to show that he acted with discernment.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that as the presumption that CICL XXX acted without discernment
was not successfully controverted, he must be acquitted.

In the case of Dorado v. People, the Court had the occasion to state that when a minor above fifteen
(15) but below eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it cannot be presumed that he
or she acted with discernment. The discernment that constitutes an exception to the
exemption from criminal liability of a minor who commits an act prohibited by law, is his
mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity
may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances accorded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude,
the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission
of the act, but also after and even during the trial.

The Court further explained that the basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential
element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Discernment is the mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong. The surrounding circumstances must
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such
circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and
shrewdness.

Here, both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX with acting with discernment,
which was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution, in fact, never endeavored to
prove that CICL XXX acted with discernment. This is highlighted by the prosecution's cross-
examination of CICL XXX, which focused only on whether Redoquerio had the motive to
falsely accuse CICL XXX of committing a crime, and whether CICL XXX's father owned a gun.
Furthermore, even if he was a co-conspirator, he would still be exempt from criminal liability
as the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non- discernment on his part by virtue
of his age.