People v.
RUEDA (194227 September 18, case at bar as the accused used a knife and
2014)
Facts: The victim, AAA, went home from
her job in Makati City and alighted the bus
she was riding at around 11:30 in the
evening of October 5, 2002. While walking
home in Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan, a man went from her behind and
wrapped his hand around her neck. This
man turns out to be the accused who has
been following her around since the time
she alighted from the bus. He brought her
towards the bus stop before pointing a
knife at her as he brings her to the dark
and grassy area of the Pulong Buhangin
Public Market. The accused threw AAA to
the ground and demanded her to strip
naked to which the latter refused. The
accused then stripped AAA himself before
proceeding to ravish the woman. After
doing so, the accused then told AAA to put
her clothes on and while she was fixing her
garment the accused, again, had carnal
knowledge of her. He subsequently asked
AAA to put her clothes on before dragging
her to a mango tree wherein he let go of
her.
The accused denied what he did to AAA
and insisted that they were sweethearts
and that it was AAA who actually asked
him to elope with her. Going by this alibi,
the accused sought his acquittal. The RTC,
however, convicted the accused of two
counts of rape to which the CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Was the guilt of the accused proven
beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING: Yes. The accused used the
sweetheart defense to which the Court
does not heed to often. The Court accepts
such defense only when other evidence are
presented such as totems, photographs,
etc. The accused did not provide for any of
these things.
Furthermore, according to Article 266-B,
rape is committed when an offender has
carnal knowledge of the victim through
force or intimidation or without her
consent. These elements are present in the
held the victim by the neck just to have
carnal knowledge with her which
necessarily implies that they are indeed
not sweethearts nor did the victim her
consent in the consummation of the awful
deed.
The use of knife as a form of intimidation
by the accused in prodding the victim to
cow to him is also considered as an
aggravating circumstance which has
attended the commission of two counts of
rape.
The Court found Edmond Rueda guily
beyond reasonable doubt of Rape in
relation to Article 266-B of the RPC and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the civil,
moral, and exemplary damages totaling up
to 80,000 pesos with costs against the
accused.
PEOPLE v. RUSTICO DELIGERO y
PADILLA (192182 Sep. 8 2014)
Facts: On September 15, 2002, Joseph was
arranging the monobloc chairs in the house
of his mother-in-law in Arujville
Subdivision, Libertad, Butuan City when all
of a sudden, the accused who was holding a
knife, appeared out of nowhere and
shunted the chair Joseph was fixing while
he was at it, and lunged at Joseph stabbing
his chest. Joseph attempted to struggle
with the accused by deflecting the blows
through his left hand but it left him
wounded. The accused retracted and again
stabbed Joseph, only this time it hit
Joseph’s abdomen. The victim then limply
made his way to his trisicad in order to
reach the place where his wife and
children were, but before he can even get
further from the scene of the crime, the
trisicad tumbled on the ground. The wife
witnessed this and she was assisted by the
others within the area in sending help for
Joseph, who, upon bringing him to the
hospital, died. The accused was nowhere to
be found on the scene of the crime. But
after a few hours, the police found him
hiding at a grassy portion of the area
hidden within the trees, with the weapon
he used in stabbing Joseph, lying on the
dark and mushy grass.
The accused invoked self-defense. He
narrated that Joseph and him were
brothers-in-law and they had a picnic
somewhere relatively near his mother’s
house. After having fun, Joseph suddenly
left the place and proceeded to his mother-
in-law’s home where he was asked by the
accused as to the reason why Joseph had
left him at the picnic area. Additionally, the
accused tells the Court that he is entitled to
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender after having surrendered
himself to the police without resistance.
ISSUE: Did the accused properly invoke
self-defense and the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING: No. In order to properly invoke
self-defense the defendant must have
proven that there was unlawful aggression
present on the part of the offended party;
that a reasonable means of necessity was
employed by the accused; and that there
was a lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
In the case at bar, unlawful aggression was
not established because Joseph’s act of
leaving the accused in the picnic area does
not constitute unlawful aggression. The
fact that unlawful aggression is absent,
already negates the invocation of the
accuse of self-defense.
If anything, the accused acted in a
treacherous manner for having attacked
the victim so suddenly leaving Joseph
without any opportunity to defend himself
especially since he was unarmed and the
accused is not. Lastly, the accused is not
entitled to a mitigating circumstance
because he did not surrender voluntarily.
The police actually searched for him and
they saw him hiding. He also attempted to
bury the instrument of the crime by
throwing it on the dark mushy grass.
The accused is therefore sentenced to
suffer Reclusion Perpetua.
PEOPLE v. JOHN JOHN A. BORCE (196432
Nov. 4, 2014)
Facts: Accused killed the victim during a
Miss Gay Pageant in the barangay plaza of
Villa Hermosa. The CA affirmed the ruling
of the RTC that the accused is guilty of
murder as attended by treachery after
having killed the victim while the latter is
occupied with texting. The accused
contended that his guilt was not
established beyond reasonable doubt
especially since the testimonies from the
witnesses of the prosecution were
obtained quite late. He asserts the
invalidity of such testimonies.
ISSUE: Is the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt?
RULING: Yes. The delay in reporting of
crimes is not unusual because of fear of
reprisals. Such delay would not affect the
validity of their statement. Add to this, the
witnesses has already provided for reasons
of such delay. Factual issues cannot also be
raised in the CA because it is not a trier of
facts and ruling made by the RTC especially
when not erroneous are accorded great
weight and respect by the appellate courts.
The Court upholds the ruling of CA in that
treachery indeed attended the commission
of murder by the accused as the essence of
treachery is sudden, unexpected, and
unforeseen attack on the victim by the
offender without the slightest provocation
on the part of the former.
PEOPLE v. ROMEO D. CALINAWAN
(226145 February 13 2017)
Facts: At around midnight of September
26, 2007, Marigor Silan, the daughter of
Janice Silan (the victim), saw her mother
stabbed to death by the accused in the
kitchen of the victim and the children’s
house. The brother of the victim came to
know about crime after being awakened by
the screams of the children. The accused
was able to run away, but the brother of
the victim saw Janice who was all
bloodied, asking help to the neighbors.
Janice’s brother quickly rushed to her and
held her before asking who had done such
a thing to her. Janice responded and said
that it was Calinawan. Janice’s brother
brought Janice to the hospital before
Janice’s husband, Danilo, came and asked
Janice who tried to kill her to which Janice
respondend as to be Calinawan. Despite
medical efforts, Janice still died in the
hospital.
The accused contended around midnight of
September 26, 2007, he went to his
mother’s house at around 7:30 in the
evening. The following day, the police
asked him regarding the killing of Janice to
which he claimed to have no knowledge of.
RTC ruled that accused is guilty of murder
as attended by the circumstance of
treachery.
ISSUE: Did treachery attended the crime?
RULING: No. Other than Marigor' s first-
hand account, no other witness actually
saw the stabbing incident. Obviously, her
narration of the events that unfolded was
crucial in determining how the killing was
perpetrated because she was the only one
who actually saw its execution. Her
testimony, however, was lacking in details;
thus, it is insufficient to conclude that the
killing was attended with treachery.
Absent clear and convincing evidence on
how the attack was perpetrated, the
conclusion that there was treachery is
nothing more but an assumption. It is
unfortunate that the particular means,
manner or method of attack was never
clearly illustrated in her testimony leaving
the evidence for murder wanting.
Under Article 249 of the RPC, the crime of
homicide is punishable by reclusion
temporal. Calinawan's prison sentence
shall then be subject to the rules provided
in the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Thus, the maximum term should be that
which could be properly imposed in view
of the attending circumstances, and the
minimum should be within the range o f
the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by the RPC.
The aggravating circumstance of nighttime
cannot be factored in because there was no
showing that Calinawan especially sought
the same or took advantage of it, or that it
had facilitated the commission of the crime
by insuring his immunity from
identification or It is noteworthy that the
attack occurred in the kitchen of the house
of Janice, which was sufficiently lighted,
enabling Marigor to identify him as the
assailant. Therefore, the sentence should
be within the range of prision mayor, as
minimum, to reclusion temporal in its
medium period, as maximum.
PEOPLE v. RODRIGO MACASPAC y ISIP
(198954 February 22 2017)
FACTS: At around 8:00PM in the evening
of July 7 1988, Macaspac was drinking with
his friends: Surban, Barcomo, Reyes, and
Jebulan. Their drinking activity took place
at Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
City. In the course of drinking, an argument
ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan.
The argument became so heated that
Macaspac threatened to hurt his friends by
saying, “Hintayin niyo ‘ko diyan, wawalisin
ko kayo.” Macaspac left the place and 3
minutes later returned with a knife.
Jebulan kept on repeating “Tama na.”
directed to Macaspac. However, Macaspac
suddenly stabbed Jebulan at the lower
right part of his chest and ran away.
Surban, Barcomo, and Reyes saw
everything and they were the ones who
brought the victim to the hospital although
he did not make it for he was dead on
arrival. Jebulan sutained serious physical
injuries that ultimately led to his death.
The accused denied all these, alleging that
it was Barcomo who engaged in an
argument with Jebulan. In fact, it was
Macaspac himself who tried to stop them
by struggling with Jebulan in order to take
a hold of the knife that Jebulan was
holding. Macaspac claims to have
accidentally wounded Jebulan in the
process. The accused, not long after,
retracted this alibi and instead went with
self-defense as an argument. He claimed
that Jebulan became pissed at him and he
was about to stab Macaspac when
Macaspac hurled a chair at Jebulan, causing
the knife to fall from his right hand and
allowing Jebulan to fall to the ground
where the knife fell which wounded
Jebulan in the chest.
The RTC ruled that Macaspac committed
murder qualified by treachery as attended
by the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.
ISSUE: IS the ruling of RTC correct?
RULING: No. 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 conditions must
concur in order fortreachery to be
appreciated, namely: one, 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 two, said
means, methods or forms of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted
by the in the information and competently
and clearly proved, qualifies the killing and
raises it to the category of murder.
Based on the records, Macaspac and
Jebulan were out drinking along with
others when they had an argument that
soon became heated, causing the former to
leave the group and punctuating his
leaving with the warning that he would be
back "to sweep them," the vernacular for
killing the others (Hintayin n’yo ako d'yan,
wawalisin ko kayo). His utterance was a
threat of an impending attack. Shortly
thereafter, Macaspac returned to the group
wielding the knife, immediately confronted
and directly taunted Jebulan (Ano?), and
quickly stabbed the latter on the chest, and
then fled. The attack, even if it was sudden
did not constitute treachery. He did not
mount the attack with surprise because the
heated argument between him and the
victim and his angry threat of going back
"to sweep them" had sufficiently
forewarned the latter of the impending
lethal assault.
The requisites for the appreciation of
evident premeditation are: ( l) the time
when the accused determined to commit
the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating
that the accused had clung to his
determination to commit the crime; and
(3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time
between the determination and execution
to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
Macaspac's having suddenly left the group
and his utterance of Hintayin n yo aka
d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo marked the time
of his resolve to commit the crime. His
returning to the group with the knife
manifested his clinging to his resolve to
inflict lethal harm on the others. The first
and second elements of evident
premeditation were thereby established.
But it is the essence of this circumstance
that the execution of the criminal act be
preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolve to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment By quickly
returning to the group with the knife, he let
no appreciable time pass to allow him to
reflect upon his resolve to carry out his
criminal intent. It was as if the execution
immediately followed the resolve to
commit the .crime. As such, the third
requisite was absent.
PEOPLE v. ROQUE DAYADAY y DAGOOC
(213224 January 16 2017)
FACTS: On the evening of October 27, 2005
at about 10:00PM, Alex, the son of Basilio
(the victim), was walking with his father
on their way home from the wedding
celebration of Rodolfo Dayaday which they
have both attended in Barrio 3, Norala,
South Cotabato. Suddenly, Roque appeared
from behind and with the use of his
handgun, shot Basilio at the back 4 times
successively. Upon witnessing the incident,
Alex immediately recognized Roque
especially since the place was well lit
thereby making Roque easily recognizable
as well as the fact that Roque was merely
10 meters away from Basilio when he shot
him from the back. Alex ran for his life out
of fear, and upon seeking refuge, asked the
help of the authorities of Norala. Basilio
died.
Roque denied this, claiming that although
he was at the same house where Basilio
and Alex came from, Roque allegedly spent
the entire night in the kitchen preparing
food for the wedding.
The RTC ruled that Roque was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder
qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation atteneded by the
aggravating circumstance of Illegal
possession of firearms. CA sustained the
finding of RTC while eliminating evident
premeditation.
ISSUE: Is Roque guilty of murder beyond
reasonable doubt?
RULING: Yes. Revised Penal Code (RPC),
murder is committed when: (1) a person
was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3)
the killing was with the attendance of any
of the qualifying circumstances
enumerated in Article 248; and (4) the
killing neither constitutes parricide nor
infanticide. All elements of the crime of
murder have been established in this case
beyond reasonable doubt.
Through the testimony of Alex, the
eyewitness to the crime, it was established
that Basilio was killed and it was Roque
who had killed him. As to the presence of
qualifying circumstances, the Court
sustains the CA's finding that treachery
attended the killing of Basilio. There is
treachery when a victim is set upon by the
accused without warning, as when the
accused attacks the victim from behind, or
when the attack is sudden and unexpected
and without the slightest provocation on
the part ofthe victim, or is, in any event, so
sudden and unexpected that the victim is
unable to defend himself, thus insuring the
execution of the criminal act without risk
to the assailant.
The evidence unequivocally shows that the
attack against Basilio, which came from
behind, was sudden, deliberate and
unexpected. The victim was completely
unaware of any threat to his life as he was
merely walking home with his son. The use
of a firearm showed deliberate intent to
kill Basilio and the location and number of
gunshot wounds rendered him defenseless
and incapable of retaliation. Hence,
treachery was evident in the case at bar,
sufficient to qualify the crime to Murder.
PEOPLE v. GREGORIO QUITA (212818
January 25 2017)
Facts: Paquito was the father of Roberto
Solayao. The former came to know
Gregorio and Fleno, who were brothers, a
year prior to the commission of the crime,
because they were the ones who deliver
water to Paquito’s family. On the evening
of November 17, 2002, at around 8:30,
Paquito’s daughter told him that Roberto
was having a drinking session nearby.
Paquito then went to the place where
Roberto is and found them to be somewhat
arguing. Paquito witnessed Roberto’s
hands being held at the back by Gregorio
as Fleno and the other 2 assailants
successively stab Roberto using a double-
bladed weapon. As Paquito screamed, the
assailants ran away. Roberto sustained 6
stab wounds, the first of which was fatal.
He was dead on arrival in the hospital of
Parañaque.
Gregorio claimed that was not a water
delivery boy; that he had worked only as a
truck driver at a company named Leslie
and by the year 2002, he resigned from
said company and worked as a truck
delivery boy at a certain company whose
products were cupnoodles. Gregorio was
asked by his kababayans, Gerry and Jose, to
drink with them at Better Living,
Paranaque City where the crime occurred.
Gregorio’s kababayans took him to the
house of a birthday celebrant. Gregorio do
not know who the celebrant was prior to
that time. Upon meeting the celebrant,
Gregorio was told that a certain group of
men led by Berto plans to hurt the
celebrant. After drinking, Gregorio passed
by Berto’s group and was punched and
hurt by them. Ever since that night,
Gregorio moved with his wife, Analyn, to
Dasmarinas Cavite where he worked as a
tricycle driver. Gregorio knew only of the
crime when a fellow driver told him that he
was being summoned for an alleged
murder committed by him.
ISSUE: Did Gregorio commit murder
qualified by treachery?
RULING: Yes. The fact of death was duly
established by the death certificate of the
victim Roberto Solayao as well as the
autopsy report prepared by Dr. Edgardo
Vida indicating that the fatal stab wound
inflicted on the victim's right shoulder
caused his death.
There is treachery when 'the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms 01
the execution, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without
risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the oftended party might
make.' These means or methods are made
in the form of a swift, deliberate and
unexpected attack, without any warning
and affording the victim, which is usually
unam1ed and unsuspecting, no chance at
all to resist or escape the impending attack.
Holding the hands of the victim to his back
while he was being stabbed hint
defenseless against the perpetrators
thereby insuring the execution of the
crin1e without risk to the offenders of any
defense that the victim might make.
PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER MEJARO ROA
(225599 March 22, 2017)
Facts: On March 16, 2007 at around
3:00PM, the deceased, Eliseo, and his
friend, Edgar, were walking along the road
near the sari-sari store of Ballecer in Zone
3, San Miguel, Bula, Camrines Sur. Eliseo
and edgar passed by a tricycle where the
accused was sitting, when suddenly, the
accused stood up, alighted from the
tricycle, and stabbed Eliseo with a hunting
knife or a ginunting at the lower part of
Eliseo’s chest. The accused ran away upon
drawing attention to himself, and sought
refuge in the abode of his uncle, Isaac. The
authorities, upon the report of Ballecer,
went to Isaac’s abode asking the accused to
surrender, to which the accused
voluntarily did. Meanwhile, as Eliseo was
brought to the nearest Health Center, he
was found dead on arrival. The accused
pleaded insanity and offered no other
defense.
ISSUE: Was the accused insane at the time
of the commission of the crime?
RULING: No. The foregoing actions of
accused-appellant immediately before,
during, and immediately after he
committed the offense indicate that he was
conscious of his actions, that he
intentionally committed the act of
stabbing, knowing the natural consequence
of such act, and finally, that such act of
stabbing is a morally reprehensible wrong.
His actions and reactions immediately
preceding and succeeding the act of
stabbing are similar if not the same as that
expected of a fully sane person. The CA
found that the circumstances of the attack
bear indicia that the killing was done
voluntarily, to wit: (1) the use of a long
bolo locally known as ginunting, (2) the
location of the stab wounds, (3) the
attempt of accused-appellant to flee from
the scene of the crime, and (4) his
subsequent surrender upon being called by
the police authorities.
PEOPLE v. TIRSO SIBBU (214757 March
29, 2017)
Facts: On December 6, 2004, between 6:30
– 7:00 in the evening, Bryan, the primary
witness of the case, was with his daughter
and parents in the azotea of his parents
abode. Warlito, the brother of Bryan, was
inside the bathroom, in the room where
the azotea is. While hanging around in the
azotea, Bryan saw a man 5 meters away
from him below, wearing a long-sleeved
camouflage uniform and a bonnet, armed
with a long firearm. He saw two other men
crouching from either sides of the said
figure. Bryan recognized the said figure as
the appellant when the latter fixed his
bonnet, allowing his face to be illuminated
by the Christmas lights hanging in the roof
of their house. The appellant, together with
his companions, fired successively at
Bryan, his daughter, and his parents. Only
Bryan survived while the others died.
Bryan went inside to tell Warlito about
what happened and they both exited the
place through the back of the house.
The appellant was convicted of two counts
of murder and one count of attempted
murder qualified by treachery attended by
two aggravating circumstances of dwelling
and disguise.
ISSUE: Were the aggravating
circumstances properly applied?
RULING: Yes. The aggravating
circumstance of dwelling should be taken
into account. Although the triggennan fired
the shot from outside the house, his victim
was inside. For this circmnstance 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 may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from without.
The use of disguise was likewise correctly
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in this case. Bryan testified
that the appellant covered his face with a
bonnet during the shooting incident. There
could be no other possible purpose for
wearing a bonnet over appellant's face but
to conceal his identity, especially since
Bryan and appellant live in the same
barangay and are familiar with each other.
PEOPLE v. KING REX. A. AMBATANG
(205855 March 29, 2017)
Facts: On October 17, 2002, at around
10:30PM, Jennifer was at the kitchen of
their house when she suddenly heard
stones being hurled at their window. She
walked towards the window and saw
Ambatang with a certain “Louie”. Jennifer
then called the barangay tanods. They
went to the house of Ambatang which was
only in front of Jennifer’s house and they
saw Ambatang in the kitchen, sharpening a
knife. Minutes later, Ambatang was
nowhere to be found. They found out the
Ambatang went on top of the victim and
stabbed him in the chest multiple times.
Jennifer and Carmelita, the victim’s wife,
saw what happened. Ambatang tried to
escape but was apprehended by the
tanods. The victim was brought to the
nearest hospital but was pronounced dead
on arrival.
The accused denies these allegations and
contends that using a weapon in killing
does not necessarily connote murder.
ISSUE: Did the accused commit murder?
RULING: Yes. The use of weapon may not be
an element of murder but King Rex’s
commission of the crime was done with
treachery. Treachery qualifies homicide,
into murder. Accused employed treachery
when he attacked the victim. This is shown
by the suddenness of the attack against the
unarmed victim, without the slightest
provocation on the latter's part and
opportunity to defend himself. Accused
was a tall, young man with a sturdy
physique. Armed with a sharp bladed
weapon, he attacked and repeatedly
stabbed the victim who was at that time
sixty years old and inferior in size and built
compared to him.
PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO (215742 March
22, 2017)
FACTS: On the evening of November 30,
1998 around 11:30PM, appellant mauled
his wife, Gemma, as he inflicted multiple
injuries upon her. Afterwards, he prepared
an alcohol for coleman or lantern with
which he used in setting his wife ablaze.
Gemma was brought to the hospital for
treatment and she confided with Dr.
Tamayo that it was in fact her husband
who tried to kill her. Due to the
seriousness of the wounds she sustained,
Gemma instantaneously died.
The appellant denied these and claimed
that he was with his friend, Rommel,
fishing in Kalkhan on the night of
November 30, 1998. He was surprised to
come home seeing his home ablaze and he
learned only of Gemma’s death through his
children. He was precluded by the police
from visiting Gemma in the hospital for he
was detained.
ISSUE: Did the accused commit parricide?
RULING: Yes. Parricide is committed
when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendants or other
descendants, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused. In the instant case, the fact of
Gemma's death is incontestable. The fact
that Gemma died on December 5, 1998 was
established by witnesses from both the
prosecution and defense. As additional
proof of Gemma's demise, the prosecution
presented her Certificate of Death which
was admitted by the RTC. Also, the spousal
relationship between Gemma and the
appellant is undisputed. Appellant already
admitted that Gemma was his legitimate
wife in the course of the trial of the case.
In parricide involving the spouses, the best
proof of the relationship between the
offender and victim is their marriage
certificate. However, oral evidence may
also be considered in proving the
relationship between the two as long as
such proof is not contested, as in this case.
Thus, having established the fact of death
and the spousal relationship between
Gemma and the appellant, the remaining
element to be proved is whether the
deceased is killed by the accused.
PEOPLE v. NARAG (216063 June 22 2017)
Facts: On the afternoon of February 9,
2004, Ederlina was at her house when the
appellant suddenly approached her and
asked where her husband, Perfecto, was.
Ederline who was surprised at that time,
asked the appellant why he was looking for
Perfecto. Instead of replying to Ederlina’s
query, the appellant barged into the house
and into Perfecto’s room. Ederlina shouted
at Perfecto to close the door but then the
appellant got a hold of Perfecto and
immediately stabbed him at his right chest.
Ederlina tried to stop the appellant but she
was pushed aside which resulted in her
suffering from minor injuries. The
appellant kept on stabbing Perfecto when
Villamor entered the scene of the crime
and held the appellant by the neck to stop
him but then the appellant directed his act
of stabbing to Villamor and so the latter
ran and while outside the abode of
Ederlina, bumped into Marlon, who is the
brother of the appellant. Villamor tried to
ask help from him to stop his brother but
Marlon merely held his neck and warned
him never to tell the police. Perfecto was
dead on arrival in the hospital where he
was brought.
The appellant was convicted of murder
qualified by treachery by the trial court
with 2 aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and disrespect to one who was
old. The appellant has also been entitled to
1 mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
ISSUE: Is the ruling of the RTC correct?
RULING: Yes. The information alleges two
(2) qualifying aggravating circumstances,
to wit: treachery and evident
premeditation and two (2) generic
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
disrespect to the victim
who is already old. Only one qualifying
circumstance of treachery with the
two generic aggravating circumstances
were proved. Applying the provision
of paragraph 4, Article 64 of the Revised
Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance o f
voluntary surrender offsets one generic
aggravating circumstance, thus leaving one
more generic aggravating.
The victim was killed not merely in his
house but in his own room. The accused
could have killed him elsewhere but he
decided to commit the crime at the victim's
home; thus the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling should be appreciated against
the accused.
The Court is also convinced that the
offense was committed in disregard o f the
respect due to the age o f the victim. The
accused knew fully well that the victim was
already old because he is his uncle. The
accused perpetrated the act against his
ageing uncle knowing that by himself, said
victim's physical condition due to old age
would not allow him to sufficiently defend
himself anymore.
PEOPLE v. Gonzalez (219848 June 7,
2017)
Facts: On May 31, 2011 at about 12AM,
Francis and Joven together with three
other friends were at the basketball court
of the barangay attending a party as it was
the last day of Sta. Cruzan. After the party,
Francis and Joven were making their way
home when Francis noticed that the
appellant was following Joven. Upon
getting close with Joven, the appellant
placed his left arm on the victim’s shoulder
and stabbed Joven. Francis ran away and
was pursued by appellant until the former
reached and entered his house to arm
himself. Upon arming himself, Francis went
for the appellant. When he caught him, he
asked him why he stabbed Joven but the
former got no response. Upon the arrival of
Francis’ other friends, the appellant flew
away but was apprehended the next
morning. Joven was declared dead on
arrival in Bicol Medical Institute.
The appellant invoked self-defense, saying
that it was Joven and his friends who kept
on pestering him to the extent that they
even tried to hurt him by attempting to
stab him with a balisong; that the stabbing
of Joven was done by one of the appellants
friends, and that the appellant merely did
so as an act of self-defense.
ISSUE: Did the appellant act with self-
defese?
RULING: No. To prove self-defense, it is
incumbent upon the accused to prove by
clear and convincing evidence the
concurrence of the following requisites
under the second paragraph of Article 11
ofthe RPC, viz.: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
lack of su(ficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
The element of unlawful aggression must
be proven first in order for self-defense to
be pleaded. There can be no self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete, unless
the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against the person who
resorted to self-defense.
In this case, however, the accused-
appellant stated that it was. not him who
stabbed the victim, but the victim's
companion or somebody else. From this
observation alone, the trial court correctly
struck down accused-appellant's (plea)
self- defense.
People v. ESPINO (225623 August 7,
2017)
Facts: On February 1, 2010 at around
12AM, Papiona and Araza (the victim)
together with 10 other people are outside
their house as the barangay fiesta had just
finished and everyone were reveling. While
Papiona was dancing with the victim, the
accused asked Papiona if he could dance
with Araza. Papiona then went to the side
of the road. As he turned around to the
direction of the victim, Papiona witnessed
Raytos stabbing the Araza from the back
multiple times. The victim died three days
later. The accused contended that it was an
act of self-defense due to the fact that it
was the victim who came to the party and
challenged everyone to a battle. The victim
challenged the accused to a fight but when
Raytos refused, the victim drew a knife and
the former tried to escape. Raytos then
wrestled for the knife that Araza was
holding and stabbed him multiple times in
the frontal chest.
ISSUE: Could the theory of self-defense of
the accused be properly considered?
RULING: No. In order for self-defense to
prosper, the person invking it must prove
that there is unlawful aggression, that
there is a reasonable necessity of the
means employed, and that there a lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the
prson defending himself. Out of all the
three, unlawful aggression is the most
indispensible requirement. In order to
establish unlawful aggression, such
aggression must either be real or imminent
and it must pose a danger to the life and
limb of the accused.
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that
unlawful aggression is present because a
simple drawing of knife is merely
speculative, thus, not real and imminent.
Raytos also stated that he was able to
escape but then he still wrestled for the
weapon before stabbing the victim.
Unlawful aggression ceases to exist upon
the retreat of the offended party.
PEOPLE v. LABIS (225743 July 21, 2017)
Facts: AAA was a saleslady in Roasario,
Cavite. On January 24, 2002 at around
8:00PM, AAA was waiting for her cousin to
fetch her as she was about to go hom to her
aunt’s house. The appellant approached
her and offered the he could accompany
her to her aunt’s house. To this, AAA
acquiesced and the both rode a tricycle.
While inside, the appellant drew a knife
and poked AAA’s waist with it all through
out the ride. AAA noticed that they weren’t
headed towards her aunt’s house. The two
alighted the tricycle and went towards an
old shack in a dark territory while the
appellant was still poking the knife on
AAA’s waist. They entered the house and
into the room where the appellant stripped
himself naked. He forcibly stripped AAA
naked before ravishing her four times. By
3:00AM, appellant let go of AAA.
The trial court ruled that the appellant is
guilty of forcible abduction with rape.
ISSUE: Was the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape committed?
RULING: No. Under Article 342 of the
Revised Penal Code, the elements of forcible
abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman
against her will; and (2) with lewd designs.
The crime of forcible abduction with rape
is a complex crime that occurs when the
abductor has carnal knowledge of the
abducted woman under the following
circumstances: (1) by using force or
intimidation; (2) when the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and (3) when the woman is
under 12 years of age or is demented.
Although the elements of forcible
abduction obtained, the appellant should
be convicted only o f rape. His forcible
abduction o f AAA was absorbed by the
rape considering that his real objective in
abducting her was to commit the rape.
Where the main objective of the culprit for
the abduction of the victim of rape was to
have carnal knowledge of her, he could be
convicted only of rape.
PEOPLE v. OHAYAS (207516 June
19,2017)
FACTS: On May 31, 1996 at around 8:00 in
the evening, Armando Jr., a 12-yr-old boy
together with Sany, 15y/o, and Lou, 18y/o,
was sitting under a mango tree in Sitio
Bonbon, Cebu. They were illuminated by
the lights coming from the houses nearby.
Armando Sr., father of Armando Jr., is a few
meters away from the latter and his
friends. The accused-appellant, who was a
balut vendor, was seven feet away from the
Armando Jr. when the former suddenly
fired his shotgun. The accused-appellant
was accompanied by others who held
torches. Armando Jr.’s group ran for their
lives and only the former was fatally hit in
the abdomen. The others merely sustained
injuries. Armando Jr. died while being
transported to the hospital.
The RTC ruled that the accused-appellant
committed murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE: Did treachery qualify the crime
committed?
RULING: Yes. The prosecution . sufficiently
established its existence in the commission
ofthe crime. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, ur
forms in the execution thereof which tend
to directly and specially insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack on an unarmed victim without the
slightest That alevosia or treachery
attended the killing of the victim was
apparent from the suddenness of the
attack. Armando, Jr., the 12-year old victim,
who was merely talking to his friends, was
suddenly shot by the accused-appellant.
The shooting in this case was deliberate,
swift and sudden, denying the victim the
opportunity to protect or defend himself.
He was unarmed and unaware o f the harm
about to happen to him.
PEOPLE v. SADIWA (208359 June 19,
2017)
Facts: On July 7, 2009 at 6:00 in the
morning, Pimentel asked Mawac to come
with him to the mountain to clean his
banana plantation. As the two were making
their way towards the said plantation,
Sabida suddenly appeared and stabbed and
hacked Mawac to death. Sabida also
threatened Pimentel saying that he will be
next but then the latter ran for his life.
Sabida invoked the theory of self-defense
as an alibi. He purported that Mawac and
his wife were accusing the former of
destroying their crops as caused by
Sabida’s chickens. The couple then
allegedly poisoned and stole Sabida’s
chickens. When the Sabida came across
Pimentel and Mawac, the former
overheard the latter tell Pimentel that they
should kill Sabida. Sabida asked Mawac
why but then Mawac immediately draw his
bolo to which Sabida parried and
attempted to defend himself. Pimentel ran
away while the two were allegedly fighting.
As Mawac fell to the ground, Sabida got
hold of the bolo and stabbed the former.
ISSUE: Did Sabida properly invoke self-
defense?
RULING: No. Unlawful aggression, the
indispensible element of self-defense, did
not come from Mawac but from Sabida
himself. The accused was not also shown to
have sustained injuries which he claimed
to have suffered after fending off an attack
from the deceased. Additionally, it was the
accused who was armed with a bolo and
not Mawac. The accused-appellant could
not have acted in self-defense if he already
had the upper hand.
PEOPLE v. JESALVA (227306 June 19,
2017)
Facts: Ortigosa together with his friends
were drinking in Dupax Street, Old Balara,
Q.C. on the 16th of September 2007 around
1:00 in the morning. After drinking,
Ortigosa’s group made their way towards
the store. Flores, one of Ortigosa’s friends,
saw the accused-appellant standing near
the store, staring at them before leaving.
Ortigosa did not mind this at first. A few
meters from the store, the accused-
appellant appeared together with Menieva
and Ilaw in front of Ortigosa’s group.
Menieva pointed at Ortigosa and stabbed
him twice with an ice peak at the right side
of his chest and below his left armpit. Ilaw
pointed a sumpak at Ortigosa while
accused-appellant pointed at Ortigosa’s
group and left. Ortigosa died.
The RTC ruled that accused-appellant is
guilty of murder and that the plan to
commit the crime was consummated
through his conspiracy with Menieva and
Ilaw.
ISSUE: Did conspiracy exist in the
commission of the crime of murder?
RULING: No. Conspiracy is said to exist
where two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The essence
of conspiracy is the unity of action and
purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
constituting the crime itself, must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not
sufficient, however, that the attack be joint
and simultaneous for simultaneousness
does not of itself demonstrate the
concurrence o f will or unity o f action and
purpose which are the bases of the
responsibility of the assailants. It is
necessary that the assailants be animated
by one and the same purpose.
Accused-appellant's act of pointing to the
victim and his group is not an overt act
which shows that accused-appellant acted
in concert with his co- accused to cause the
death of Ortigosa. We stress that mere
knowledge, acquiescence or approval of
the act, without the cooperation and the
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
establish conspiracy. Even if the accused
were present and agreed to cooperate with
the main perpetrators of the crime, their
mere presence does not make them parties
to it, absent any active participation in the
furtherance of the, where the only act
attributable to the other accused is an
apparent readiness to provide assistance,
but with no certainty as to its ripening into
an overt act, there is no conspiracy. The
mere pointing at the victim and his group,
although it may mean his approval in the
commission of the crime, absent any overt
act, there is no conspiracy.
PEOPLE v. SABADO (218910 July 5, 2017)
Facts: On September 13, 2006 at 12:15 in
the afternoon, the accused-appellant was
seen outside the Diamond Pawnshop with
two other men. The accussed-appellant
entered the pawnshop and he was
accompanied by one of the men. The third
man stood aside as a look-out. Minutes
later, the accuse-appellant’s mouth was
taped and the man who went inside him
was holding him by the back before
removing the tape from the former’s
mouth. The accused-appellant then
shouted for help, claiming that a robbery
had occurred. The owner of the pawnshop
confirmed that the value of the items
missing were exactly 583,300 pesos. The
accused claimed that he was merely forced
by the culprit to open the vault and give
him the items.
ISSUE: Does a conspiracy exist between
the two men and the accused-appellant?
RULING: Yes.It has already been settled that
conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to
from the conduct of accused-appellant
and the other accused before, during, and
after the commission of the crime. In
particular, accused- appellant's act of
ushering in one of his co-accused inside
the pawnshop already constitutes an overt
act of his coordination with and actual
participation in the common purpose or
design to commit the felony.
His overt act of opening the steel gate,
facilitating the entry of one of his co-
accused inside the pawnshop, and opening
of the vault despite his avowal that the
vault was controlled by a time delay
mechanism, showed his complicity in the
commission of the crime charged.
PEOPLE v. SUMAGIT (220889 July 6,
2017)
Facts: On the evening of August 31, 2007
Hiroshi celebrated his 17th birthday with
his friends in the house of his aunt and
uncle in Pasig City. Jolly, one of Hiroshi’s
friends present at his celebration, bought
beer at the nearest store at around 12
midnight. At the store, he was approached
by Enrile and the letter asked if he could
join the party. Jolly acquiesced and Enrile
offered him help in bringing the cases of
beer back to the party. On the way to the
party, Enrile was followed by a group of
men including the accused-appellant. The
group of vigilantes ordered Hiroshi and his
friends to lie down before tying their hands
at their backs. They subsequently robbed
them of their things and all the other
personal belongings at Hiroshi’s house.
The maids were awakened by this and occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of
Noel, one of the fugutives, together with them proves that he endeavored to prevent
the accused-appellant, entered the maids’ the immediately preceding condition is
room and raped AAA in the presence of the absent in this case. The factual finding of
accuse-appellant. The other maid was able the trial court as affirmed by the CA is
to escape. Marvin, the other fugitive, already irreversible holding that while
entered the master’s bedroom and took accused-appellant did not rape AAA, he,
pieces of jewelry, ATMs, and cash while however, did not endeavor to stop Noel
Hiroshi’s aunt and Uncle were awake. despite an opportunity.
RTC ruled that the accused-appellant is
guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape.
ISSUE: Did the RTC erred in its decision?
RULING: No. For a conviction of the crime of
robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown
that the rape was committed by reason or on
the occasion of a robbery and not the other
way around. This speci.al complex crime
under Article 294 of the RPC contemplates a
situation where the original intent of the
accused was to take, with intent to gain,
personal property belonging to another and
rape is committed on the occasion thereof or
as an accompanying crime.

The prosecution's evidence established

with certainty that accused-appellant,
together with his brother Marvin, and co-
accused Noel, have intruded the house of
spouses Teodora and Robert on the
occasion of Hiroshi's birthday celebration
thereat. They aided each other in divesting
the guests of Hiroshi of their personal
belongings through violence and
intimidation. The evidence disclosed that
they were armed with guns and knife, and
they tied the hands of their victims and
threatened them with harm if they
disobeyed their orders. Noel and Marvin,
on the same occasion, entered the room of
spouses Teodora and Robert through the
window and succeeded in taking away
from their possession some pieces
ofjewelry, laptop, ATM card, and cash.

Once conspiracy is established between

several accused in the commission of the
crime of robbery, as in the present case,
they would all be equally culpable for the
rape committed by anyone of them on the