CHAPTER I.

THE CASE AND ITS NATURE

I. I INTRODUCTION

Truth often lies in the lips of a dying man. A person aware of a forthcoming death in

Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Roberto

Bernardo y Fernandez, armed with a gun, with intent to kill, with generally considered

truthful in his words and credible in his accusation. A dying man's statements, given

under proper circumstances, are treated with highest weight and credence. About May

25, 2001, in the Municipality of Solana, Province of evident premeditation and

treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and

shoot one, Roger Arquero y Cudiamat Alias Rolando, inflicting upon him fatal

gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death.

I. II OBJECTIVES

1.This case analysis aimed to determine the reasons and motives of accused person to

commit such crime that take him to conviction.

2. To have knowledge on how our responsible authorities especially those in court,

provide justice to the crime.

3. To identify the persons involved in the case.

4. To find out how the perpetrator execute his action to do such crime.

5. To understand and analyze different evidences that helps solved the case.

I.III DEFINITION OF TERMS.

 Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid

excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

This state

of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of

unlawful

RPCP- (An Act Revising the Penal Code and other Penal Laws No. 3815, December

8, 1930), Article 6 | International Commission of Jurists.

Treachery- when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,

employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and

specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense

which the offended party might make.

Evidence- an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or

less probable.

Premeditation- planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something.

Reclusion Perpetua- the penalty handed down to inmates who have been convicted

of capital crimes as well as what the Republic Act 7659 designates as "heinous

crimes" once punishable by death.

Accused- A person or persons formally charged but not yet put on trial for

committing a crime.

Guilty- the admission by a defendant that they have committed the crime they were

charged with, or the finding by a judge or a jury that the defendant has committed the

crime.
Proven beyond reasonable doubt- the prosecution must convince the jury that there

is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.

Deliberate- it refers to intentional or predetermined action or omission. For example,

a natural person who deliberately commits a crime.

RTC- Regional trial court.

CA- Court of appeal, an intermediate level of court, between trial courts and the

Supreme Court, which hears these cases on appeal from a lower court.

Aggravating circumstances- refers to the factors that increase the severity or

culpability of a criminal act. Typically, the presence of an aggravating circumstance

will lead to a harsher penalty for a convicted criminal.

Testimony- is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or

deposition during a trial or other legal procedures.

Penalty- the punishment imposed upon a person who has violated the law, whether or

a contract, a rule, or regulation.

Indemnity- a type of insurance compensation paid for damage or loss. When the term

is used in the legal sense, it also may refer to an exemption from liability for damage.

Temperate damages- may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary

loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved

with certainty. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.

CHAPTER II CASE DOCUMENTATION

II. I NATURE OF THE CASE.

In this case the law violated by ROBERTO BERNARDO y FERNANDEZ is under

title eight of Revise Penal Code (RPC)that is crimes against persons, Chapter one

article 248 which is Murder. It considered murder because the qualifying

circumstances to be considered as murder are present in the case:

• treachery

• with evident premeditation

• and intent to kill

From the evidence, and as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the Court

likewise rules that treachery was established. Under paragraph 16 of article 14 of the

Revise Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means,

methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly

and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the

defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly

appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim

was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and

deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by

him. 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. Likewise, the special

aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was correctly appreciated.

Under Section 1 of RA 8294

Accused-appellant has not presented contrary evidence to dispute the uniform be z

findings of the RTC and CA that he hid behind the hilly portion of the rice field and

suddenly fired at Arquero while the latter was walking thereat. Accused-appellant
ROBERTO BERNARDO y FERNANDEZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm. He is sentenced to

suffer the penalty of reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to

pay the heirs of Roger Arquero the sums of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity,

Php100,000.00 as moral damages, Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages and

Php50,000.00 as temperate damages.

II. II CIRCUMTANCES OCCURRED.

On 25 May 2001, at around 6:00 a.m., the victim Roger Arquero fetched his brother-

in-law, Rolando Licupa (Licupa) to go to the rice field. While they were walking

towards the other side of the rice paddy, accused-appellant suddenly appeared from

the hilly portion of the field and shot Arquero once using a homemade shotgun,

hitting the latter on the lower abdomen. Accused-appellant ran away, while Licupa

shouted for help. Dionisio Evangelista (Evangelista) arrived.

Licupa and Evangelista carried Arquero using a sledge and brought him to Pedro

Arquero's house before taking him to St. Paul Hospital. Policemen arrived to

investigate. Arquero died the same day.

During trial, Licupa testified that he knew accused-appellant because he is Arquero's

nephew. On the other hand, Mercilyn Arquero, the victim's widow, testified that

Arquero told her that accused-appellant was the one who shot him. She identified a

list of expenses incurred due to the victim's hospitalization and death, but did not

present receipts.

Meanwhile, Dr. Honorario Reyes (Dr. Reyes), the medico-legal officer testified that

the victim's wounds perforated his small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder.

II. III STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES

Testimonies of prosecution witnesses are followings;

During trial, Licupa testified that he knew accused-appellant because he is Arquero's

nephew. Mercilyn Arquero, the victim's widow, testified that Arquero told her that

accused-appellant was the one who shot him. She identified a list of expenses incurred

due to the victim's hospitalization and death, but did not present receipts. Dr.

Honorario

Reyes (Dr. Reyes), the medico-legal officer testified that the victim's wounds

perforated his small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder.

Testimonies of the accused;

Accused-appellant testified that in the morning of 25 May 2001, he was with his

family at their house in Sitio Masin, Iraga, Solana, Cagayan. They were sleeping

when Arquero, Loreto Arquero, Licupa, Dionisio Arquero, Ambot Soriano and a

certain Amboy fired gunshots at his house. He surmised that the attack was motivated

by revenge because in 1991, he was convicted for killing Arquero's brothers. He also

stated that prior to the shooting, the assailants ordered his wife and children to go out

of the house. When accused-appellant was the only one left inside, the assailants open

fired. Accused-appellant testified

that he was able to avoid the bullets because he dropped to the ground. He claimed,

however, that the victim was shot by his companion, Licupa, and that he even

reported the shooting incident to the police.

II. IV PERSONALITIES INVOLVED.

Roger Arquero- the victim

Rolando Licupa - brother-in-law of Roger Arquero

Dionisio Evangelista- who help Rolando Licupa to carry Arquero's body.

Pedro Arquero - the owner of the house where they brought Aquero before taking to

the hospital.

Mercilyn Arquero- the widow of Roger Aquero Dr. Honorario Reyes - the medico-

legal officer who examine Arquero's wounds and also testified in court.

II. V ACTIONS AND INTERVENTIONS MADE BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER

HANDLING THE CASE.

After the commission of the crime murder, the authorities have done its function. The

law enforcement actively responded during the incident and discovered the evidence

needed to court appearance. A homemade shotgun was discovered and brought to

authorities together with the witnesses. During the prosecution, evidence and

statements from witnesses were properly examined and analyzed. The court has made

its judgement that the perpetrators guilt for the crime of murder defined and penalized

under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code Accused-appellant ROBERTO

BERNARDO y FERNANDEZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearms. He is sentenced to suffer the

penalty of reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole and such accessory

penalties provided for by law. However, Roberto appealed seeking the reversal of the

Decision but on appeal, it's affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Roberto

Bernardo (accused-appellant) for the crime of murder the CA (court of appeal) agreed

with the findings of the trial court that even assuming willfully, unlawfully and

feloniously attack that unlawful aggression was present on the part of Arquero, there

was no longer any danger on Roberto person from the moment he fired his homemade

shotgun. The appellate court was convinced that Licupa testimony was clear,
steadfast, convincing, and pointed to no other conclusion that Roberto shot Arquero to

death. Likewise, the CA pointed out that the RTC correctly appreciated evident

premeditation and treachery as a circumstance to qualify the offense to murder.

In addition, the CA and the RTC correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances

of using unlicensed firearms of Roberto. Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in

all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties,

the greater penalty shall be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by

one aggravating circumstance. In this case, the special aggravating circumstance of

use of an unlicensed firearm was alleged in the Information and proven during the

trial. The presence of such aggravating circumstances warrants the imposition of the

death penalty. Hence, as to the penalty, the Court agrees with the CA and the RTC

(Regional trial court) in imposing the penalty of reclusion Perpetua to death with no

eligibility of parole in accordance with the provisions of Article 248 of the RPC, in

relation to Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in all cases in which the law

prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall

be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating

circumstance nor he does not want to cause any trouble or additional expenses for his

search and capture

II. VI RESULTS OF THE ACTION AND INTRVENTION.

Finally, the Decision dated 20 May 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-

H.C. No. 04486 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant

ROBERTO BERNARDO y FERNANDEZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm. He is sentenced to

suffer the penalty of reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to
pay the heirs of Roger Arquero the sums of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity,

Php100,000.00 as moral damages, Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages and

Php50,000.00 as temperate damages.

CHAPTER III CASE ANALYSIS

Nowadays murder is everywhere which should be stop and penalize the offender to

capital punishment. According to the Philippine law from the Revised Penal Code, the

said crime is defined under the article 248 which stated that any person who, not

falling within the provisions of Article 246 (Parricide) shall kill another, shall be

guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period

to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or

employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford

impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of

motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of

an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public

calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim,

or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

In this case, the crime committed by Roberto Bernardo y Fernandez falls on under the

first and fifth circumstances of murder.

As to the evidence of the case which is the homemade shotgun that the police

gathered after the incident occurred, medico-legal officer testified that the victim's

wounds perforated his small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder. Inflicting upon him

fatal gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death. The

clear and concise testimonies of witnesses during the incident convinced the court to

convict the accused and suffered such penalty as to what the law provides.

Moreover, to successfully prosecute the crime murder, the following elements must be

established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that

Arquero the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in

Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

Additionally in the commission of the offense the special aggravating circumstance of

use of an unlicensed firearm was present. In this case, the prosecution was able to

establish that Arquero (1) was shot and killed; (2) Rolando shot and killed him; (3) the

killing of Arquero was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and with

evident premeditation; and (4) the killing of Arquero was neither parricide nor

infanticide. We agree with the trial court's finding that the prosecution has proven

Rolando guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the first and fifth element of the offense

was proven by presenting the Certificate of Death of Arquero.

CHAPTER IV

IV. I FINDINGS

At the conclusion of this study, the researchers have found out that in order to prove

that the crime committed was murder is to emphasize if the act is done by any of the
attendant circumstances stated from the Revised Penal Code Article 248 of the

Philippines. Also, the elements of murder should be contain by any person who

commit such act in order to be convicted by the said crime which are;(1) that a person

was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by

any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that

the killing is not parricide or infanticide. On the other hand, the case of Roberto

Bernardo is clearly committed the said crime due to the concise and efficient

evidences and testimonies of the witnesses upon the investigation which makes the

accused be convicted by the said crime. Moreover, it gave credence to the testimony

of Licupa, as well as the victim's statement to the police and his wife that accused-

appellant shot him. It also appreciated the presence of the qualifying circumstance of

treachery, and the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm.

Therefore, Bernardo suffered the penalties imposed by the law and its accessories.

IV. II CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Roberto Bernardo y Fernadez deserves the punishment the court has

imposed on him and has been subjected to up to this point. Every individual who

worked on the matter did their utmost to ensure that Arquero's death was treated

fairly. The case is strengthened and has the best chance of success with the aid of

witness testimony, the victim's last statements, and all of the evidence that was used in

court. This case would serve as an illustration for people, helping them to comprehend

how our legal system and law enforcement carried out their duties, particularly in

situations like this. Additionally, this has altered the public's unfavorable opinion of

police enforcement personnel.

IV. III RECOMMENDATION

1. Now a days murder killing is rampant on different sector of our community,

and we should help in preventing those cases. As criminology student we can

help preventing those crimes by using our knowledge and skills that we

learned from schools. Here are the following recommendations;

2. Conduct research to understand the root causes and patterns of violent crime.

Analyze data to identify trends that can inform prevention strategies.

3. Engage with communities to raise awareness about crime prevention measures

and collaborate on local initiatives.

4. Advocate for evidence-based policies that address the social, economic, and

psychological factors contributing to violence.

5. Develop or support educational programs that focus on conflict resolution,

anger management, and fostering empathy.

6. Gain practical experience through internships or fieldwork with law

enforcement, community organizations, or research institutions dedicated to

crime prevention.

7. Join or support community-based crime prevention programs and initiatives.

8. Work collaboratively with law enforcement, social workers, psychologists, and

other professionals to create comprehensive solutions.

Remember, preventing violence requires a multidisciplinary approach, and our

expertise in criminology can contribute valuable insights to these efforts.

REFERENCES

Tagayuna, A. (2004). Capital punishment in the Philippines.

D'Cruze, S., Walklate, S., & Pegg, S. (2013). Murder. Willan.

Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations

of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2),

175-184.

Akerstrom, M. (2017). Betrayal and betrayers: The sociology of treachery. Routledge.Fletcher,

R., & Fletcher, R. A. (2004). Bloodfeud: murder and revenge in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford

University Press, USA.

Heffernan, J. A. (2014). Hospitality and Treachery in Western Literature. Yale University

Press.

Binder, G. (2011). Making the Best of Felony Murder. BUL Rev., 91, 403.

Santaella-Tenorio, J., Cerdá, M., Villaveces, A., & Galea, S. (2016). What do we know about

the association between firearm legislation and firearm-related injuries? Epidemiologic

reviews, 38(1), 140-157.

Kovandzic, T. V., & Marvell, T. B. (2003). Right‐to‐carry concealed handguns and violent

crime: Crime control through gun decontrol? Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 363-396.
ROBERTO BERNARDO Y FERNANSEZ AKA “ROLANDO” MURDER CASE

_________________

CASE ANALYSIS

____________________

Presented to the Faculty of the

Criminology Department
Tubod college

___________________

By:
Paglinawan, Carl Cristenson
Lambojon Kenneth
Abang, Gryka krissin
Suedo, Mcrhee
Daniel, Donna jean
Villa, Ian arvie
Tanghiyan, Flor deliza
Rodela, Leofieren Gil

_____________________________________________________________________

December 2023