People v.

Tiongson,
GR L-35183-24, July 25, 1984
FACTS:
Rudy Tiongson escaped from the municipal jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro together
with George Dela Cruz and Rolando Santiago while being detained under the charge of
attempted homicide. Rudy Tiongson killed Patrolman Gelera who was guarding them at
the jail, they also killed Constable Aurelio who were in pursuit of them when they
escaped. Patrolman Gelera allowed them to go out from their request of sudden call of
nature. Tiongson got Gelera’s gun and shoot his right cheek, Gelera died so they were
able to escape.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime committed by Tiongson were committed in contempt of or with insult
to the public authorities.
DECISION:
The aggravating circumstance that crimes were committed in contempt of or
with insult to the public authorities cannot be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC
Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed.
Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but
merely agents of a person in authority.

1
 People v. Ursal,
GR L- 33768, Apr. 20, 1983
FACTS:
On or about October 26,1970 at Cebu, Cristutu Ursal hacked and boloed Aquilina
Lepon on her head while she was near the awning of her house. Lepon was 53 years
old. Upon being hit, she ran towards her neighbor to seek help and then collapsed and
was not able to say anything after that. Her husband who was sleeping near the awning
was attacked too but was able to survive. Cristutu fled and sought refuge to his co-
laborers house but was arrested. The incident was witnessed by a 10 years old girl,
Maximina Ortega, who was doing an errand to buy at the victim’s store which is also in
the same building where the victim lives.
Upon his arrest he admitted killing the victim and assaulting her husband, but he claims
that while waiting for transportation near the house of the victims it rained so they took
shelter in the said house. He said that the victims had altercation with one Juanito
Nogas. Nogas allegedly struck Aquilina with a piece of wood then got a bolo from the
store and handed it to Cristutu, afraid that he might strike him, he hit Severino in the
forehead then both ran away. Cristutu denied having hacked Aquilina.
The Court of First Instance found Cristutu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder.

ISSUE:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of disregard of sex and dwelling would
be appreciated in this case.

DECISION:
The solicitor general said that aggravating circumstances of disregard of sex and
dwelling should not be considered in this case.
In the disregard to sex there is no showing that appellant specially saw to it that his
victim would be a woman. In United States v. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190, the aggravating
circumstance of sex is not sustained by the fact that the victim was a woman, unless it
further appears that aside from the unlawful taking of her life, there was in the
commission of the crime some specific insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood.
In the disregard to dwelling, it cannot be definitely stated that the crime was committed
inside the house of the victim. All that can be gathered from the record is that Aquilina
when struck by appellant "was near the awning of the house." This would indicate that
she was outside her house.
The decision of the lower court was modified, he was found guilty without any
aggravating circumstance. He was sentence to reclusion perpetua.

2
 People v. Pagal,
GR L-32040, October 25, 1977
FACTS:
Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charge with the crime of robbery with
homicide and was sentenced to death. It was stated in the trial court that they stole cash
amounting to P1,281.00 from their employer. They also killed their employer by stabbing
him with an icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts of his body. The
accused then pleaded guilty. During the trial, they presented evidence of maltreatment
or ill-treatment by the victim.
The appellants claim that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, evident premeditation, and disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank and age.

ISSUE:
Whether the appelants claim that the trial court erred in considering the
aggravating circumstances.

DECISION:
Although the trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity because the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the appellants
to facilitate the commission of the crime, nevertheless, We disagree with its conclusion
that evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due the offended party were
present in the commission of the crime.
Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in the crime of
robbery with homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, it is
considered as an aggravating circumstance. In other words, evident premeditation will
only be aggravating in a complex crime of robbery with homicide if it is proved that the
plan is not only to rob, but also to kill. In the case at bar, a perusal of the written
statements of the appellants before the police investigators show that their original plan
was only to rob, and that, they killed the deceased only when the latter refused to open
the "kaha de yero" and fought with them. The trial court, therefore, erred in taking into
consideration the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard
of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken
into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the
crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. lt is not proper to
consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with
homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a
mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the
criminal. The trial court erred in taking into account this aggravating circumstance.
It results that in the commission of the crime, there is only generic aggravating
circumstance, i.e., nighttime or nocturnity.
The judgment of the trial court is modified and the appellnts Pedro Pagal y Marcelino
and Jose Torcefino y Torazo are hereby sentenced to suffer each the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.

3
 People v. Perreras, GR 139622, July 31, 2001

FACTS:
Pedro Perreras was arrested in Isabela for the death of Estanislao, but his co-
accused (Boy) remained at large. Pedro and Boy were a former resident of Bacayaoan
Norte, Dagupan. Before the incident, both approached Leonardo who was engaged in
an idle banter at the waiting shed to ask about directions going to the house of Manoling
Pastoral, subsequently Leonardo again saw them holding a beer when he went to have
some fresh air almost 10 minutes away from the house of Estanislao. Both accused
again asked the son of Estanislao where Pastoral resides, the house which is adjacent
to the house of Estanislao. Pedro stopped by the window of the victim’s house which is
adjacent to the window of Manoling, he drew a gun from his waist and fired it at
Estanislao hitting him on his head. The victim was rushed to the hospital, but was
declared dead.
The accused denied the allegations to him, but the trial court ruled that the murder was
aggravated by dwelling so he was penalized to death.
ISSUE:

Whether the crime committed was Aggravated by dwelling.

DECISION:
The decision of the lower court was modified, instead of death penalty it was
reduced to reclusion perpetua. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is
not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim
to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the
outside. The victim was killed inside his house even if the accused was outside when he
committed the crime.

4
 People v. Rios,
GR 132632, June 19, 2000
FACTS:
On February 07, 1996, Angel Rios stabbed Ambrocio causing his death.
According to the wife of the victim, Rios threw stones at their house, few minutes later
Rios went to their store to buy cigarettes so Ambrocio confronted Rios about the stoning
incident. The two had altercation, but as the tanods were roving the vicinity, they
requested the two to part ways.
A few minutes later, rios went back and stabbed Ambrocio at the terrace of the house of
the victim then fled.
In Rios’ defense, after his work at 5pm, he went straight to his brother’s house and
denied having seen Ambrocio on February 07, 1996.
The RTC found Rios guilty for the crime of murder.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in considering Dwelling as an aggravating
circumstance.
DECISION:
The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
or morada in this case. The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that
forms an integral part thereof and therefore it includes the staircase of the house and
much more, its terrace. When a crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party
and the latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be:
(a) given by the offended party,
(b) sufficient, and
(c) immediate to the commission of the crime.

5
 People v. Nuguid,
GR 148991, Jan. 21, 2004
FACTS:
Leonardo Nuguid and his company had a drinking spree outside the house of
Jun Rianzares. Jun went out of their house to see his friend. He left his wife Rowena
sleeping with their children. After awhile she heard a knock on the door so she slightly
opened the door seeing Nuguid. She did not open the door due to suspicion because
Nuguid said that Jun is angry and wants to ask for money to buy alcohol. Rowena said
that her husband has money so why does he need to ask. Nuguid still shouted so
rowena opened her door to confront him, but Nuguid placed his left arm arpund her
neck pointing a knife. Nuguid forced her to lie down then proceeded to rape her. About
10 minutes, someone knocked on the door. Eusebio heard Rowena’s shout. The
appellant threatened not to open the door, or he will kill Rowena. About 30 minutes
thereafter, her husband arrived. The Barangay took over the negotiation but failed too.
They called the police, and the policemen forcibly opened the door. They got hold of the
appellant and pulled Rowena from him. It was later found out that Rowena suffered from
8 injuries including her private part.
The Regional trial Court found him guilty of serious illegal detention with rape and
sentenced him to death.
ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in convicting the accused of serious illegal detention with
rape.
DECISION:
The Court ruled that it may be worth to mention at the outset that there is no
complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. If the purpose is to deprive the
offended party of liberty, the crime committed is illegal detention. And, if during the
course of the illegal detention, the offended party is raped, a separate crime of rape is
committed; in this instance, two independent crimes are committed. However, if the
objective of the offender is to rape the victim only, and in the process, the latter had to
be illegally detained, only the crime of rape is committed since illegal detention is
deemed absorbed in rape.