PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

HILARIO REBAMONTAN alias AYONG,

accused-appellant. G.R. No. 125318

Facts:

Hilario Rebamontan stabbed Pedro Cagrado Jr. with a small bolo, known locally as “depan”.
Appellant was initially positioned behind Pedro, but Pedro turned around as he was about to
stab him. Pedro was stabbed in the right chest and died.
Hilario, in his defense, claimed that the victim first stabbed him two times but Pedro was not
hit. Pedro had hold a grudge against the appellant for the that Pedro tried to stab the appellant.
RTC ruled that a qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the case. However, it did
not rule on the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender(VS). Hence he was sentenced to
death penaly.

Issue:
1. W/N there is treachery and voluntary surrender (YES on Treachery and No on VS)
2. W/N proper penalty was imposed (NO)

Ruling:

1. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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. The essence of treachery is the swiftness and the unexpectedness of the
attack upon the unsuspecting and unarmed victim, who does not give the slightest
provocation. Two conditions must concur: (1) the malefactor employs such means, method
or manner of execution that ensures his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory act
of the victim; and (2) such means, method or form of execution is consciously and
deliberately adopted by the accused. We find both conditions present in the case at bar.
Clearly, Cagrado Jr. had nary an inkling that a death blow was looming on him. Rebamontan
inconspicuously walked first in front of him, without any manifestation of his criminal plan.
Only when the assailant got behind the unsuspecting victim did he commit his murderous
act. Obviously, such a wily scheme of assault was deliberately adopted to ensure its success
and to give no chance to the victim to elude it, much less to retaliate. The fact that Cagrado
Jr. was facing him at the same moment as the latter's attack did not erase its treacherous
nature. Even if the assault were frontal, the fact that it was sudden or totally unexpected,
thus giving the victim no opportunity at all to defend himself or to retaliate, definitely
points to the presence of treachery.

On Voluntary Surrender, The mere fact that he did not resist his arrest or deny his criminal act
cannot be equated with voluntary surrender. His arrest was already imminent. To be
voluntary, a surrender must be spontaneous and deliberate; that is, there must be an intent to
submit oneself unconditionally to the authorities.’
2. Even if the killing was qualified with treachery, without the attendance of any other
aggravating circumstance, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon the appellant. In
murder, the imposition of death is not automatic. The law prescribes the penalty range of
reclusion perpetua to death. It is an elementary rule in criminal law that where two
indivisible penalties are prescribed for an offense, and there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be
applied. The solicitor general is correct in asserting that the trial court erred in imposing the
death sentence upon appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ||| (People v.
Jorge y Ramirez, G.R. No. 99379, [April 22, 1994], 301 PHIL 700-706)

Facts:
Patricio Ocenar’s testimony stated that on 26 June 1990, at around nine-thirty in the evening,
he was at the barangay hall. Then a person informed him that Francisco Palma was being
molested by three men, which was the accused Eduardo Jorge, Romeo Lajera and Remedios
Bernales. Ocenar saw Eduardo Jorge and Romeo Lajera holding the hands of Palma and a
woman stabbing him on the left chest with a long instrument. The 3 men was charged with
murder with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

Appellant Jorge denies participation as he was sleeping at his house when the crime was
committed. He was only forced out of his house by the policemen. He was convicted thereon.

Issue: W/N Jorge is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: NO.
In this case, conspiracy was not established. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
establish the presence of criminal conspiracy.

Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish
the existence of conspiracy. In this case, no unity of purpose was shown. The only involvement
of appellant was his holding of the hand of Palma when he was stabbed by Bernales on the left
chest. There was no other evidence to show unity of design. The simultaneousness of the act of
stabbing the victim by Bernales with the holding of the hand of the same victim by appellant
does not of itself demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action. For, it is
possible that the appellant had no knowledge of the common design, if there was any, nor of
the intended assault until the victim was actually stabbed. The thrust could have been made at
the spur of the moment, totally unexpected by appellant. The mere holding of the victim's hand
does not necessarily prove intention to kill.

Furthermore, the appellant cannot be considered a principal by indispensable cooperation, nor

an accomplice in the crime of murder.

To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution,

a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished. In order that a
person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (a) community
of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs
with the latter in his purpose; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and
those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
There is indeed nothing on record to show that appellant knew that Bernales was going to stab
Palma, thus creating a doubt as to appellant's criminal intent.prLL