You are on page 1of 4

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v.

Ancheta
Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 189281 February 23, 2011 People v. Ancheta


Facts: Manuel Pomipic had witnessed the killing of Vicente Palabay as the latter was standing in front of a waiting shed along the National Highway of Bacolod. It was about 11:00 P.M. on May 30, 1990 that a motorcycle, driven by Pat Edgardo Gedo Cruz, stopped in front of the victim. On board the motorcycle was herein appellant Romeo Ancheta who invited the victim to ride as to bring him to his destination. The Victim declined and crossed the street but was followed by the appellant who shot him 9 times as he turned around. The appellant claimed to have been at the PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen at the night of the killing but the court found him guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery which absorbed the circumstance of nighttime, was appreciated against the appellant. The rest of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were disregarded. Issue: Whether the RTCs decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly appreciated treachery and disregarded the other qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Ruling: The Court ruled that both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery although the attack was frontal because the victim had no opportunity of defending himself due to the fact that the attack was made deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly. For the other circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, it was disregarded due to the lack of proof.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 179477 February 04, 2009 People v. De Guzman


Facts: Herein appellant Franco De Guzman, was found guilty for the murder of Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Armando B. Nipales, a pedicab driver, testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of November 14, 2003, he overheard the cell phone conversation of appellant where the latter planned to execute somebody. On that same night, the appellant while onboard a motorcycle fired shots at the motorcycle driven by Angelito Malanum where the victim was riding. The victim and the driver were shot resulting to the falling of the motorcycle. The driver crossed the street and upon looking back, witnessed the appellant shoot the victim several more times amounting to a total of 14 gunshot wounds which ultimately resulted to his death. The appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death as aggravated by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated against the appellant in his act of killing Dr. Fidelito Manaois. Ruling: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his actions. In the Case at bar, the appellants plan to commit the crime was overheard during a cell phone conversation. Later that same night he shot and killed the victim. The Court ruled that there was no sufficient time for the appellant to have reflected on the consequences of his actions and to have clung to hi determination to kill the victim. Evident premeditation was therefore proven not to have attended the killing.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 People v. Borce


Facts: As Regina Baga went into the forest to collect firewood she was followed by herein appellant, Samuel Borce, who wrested away the bolo she was carrying and with the same threatened to kill her. Being of a much bigger and stronger build, the appellant succeeded in raping the victim despite her efforts to resist. The appellant then dragged her deeper into the forest where he raped her again for the second time. The appellant thereafter proceeded to strangle her with the intention of killing her but the victim regained her consciousness thereafter. She notices the hack wounds that have been made to her face and called for help. The victims son and daughter were able to locate her and thereafter bring her to the hospital for medical assistance for the almost fatal wounds she incurred. The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape and frustrated murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death because the victim had suffered permanent physical mutilation. Issue: Whether the attendant circumstances or permanent physical mutilation should be appreciated against the appellant due to the three hack wounds he inflicted upon the victims face. Ruling: The Court ruled that the injuries incurred by the victim should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of frustrated murder. The case had failed to disclose that the accused inflicted the wounds to her face deliberately to maim her. If such were the case then the circumstance of permanent physical mutilation would have been considered. But the wounds sustained were a result of the appellants attempt to kill her and should therefore be absorbed by the crime of frustrated murder of which he was convicted. The penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.