PEOPLE vs.

ARIZOBAL
December 14, 2000
G.R. Nos. 135051-52
Ponente: PER CURIAM:

Principles involved: Aggravating circumstances

Relevant laws cited: Sec. 25 of RA 7659 amending Art. 83 of The Revised Penal Code

FACTS

Clementina Gimenez, wife of victim Laurencio Gimenez, testified that on 24 March 1994 she together
with her husband Laurencio Gimenez and a grandchild were sound asleep in their house in Tuybo,
Cataingan, Masbate. That evening, There were three armed men (Clarito Arizobal, Erly Lignes, Rogelio
Gemino) forcibly entered their house and got their money and before leaving with their loot they ordered
Laurencio Gimenez to go with them and after the group left she heard a volley of shots. Then she found
out that her husband was already dead.

On 12 August 1994 two (2) separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Cataingnan, Masbate, charging Clarito Arizobal, Erly Lignes, Rogelio Gemino with Robbery in Band
with Homicide for robbing and slaying Laurencio Gimenez.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery and homicide.

RULING/HELD

Yes. finding accused-appellant GUILTY of Robbery with Homicide and imposing upon both of them the
penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant ERLY LIGNES
and his co-accused CLARITO ARIZOBAL.

In accordance with Sec. 25 of RA 7659 amending Art. 83 of The Revised Penal Code

The robbery with killing was aggravated: 1) By a band because the malefactors were more than three
armed robbers acting together; 2) With treachery because the robbers tied the hand of the victims before
killing them; 3) By nighttime (nocturnity) because the accused took advantage of the night; and, 4) By
dwelling because the robbery is (sic) committed with violence against or intimidation of persons x x x and
the commission of the crime begun in the dwelling

The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is
considered inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors
thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile. 17 In the
case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims' abode
when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into
submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to
be killed.
PEOPLE v ESCOTE
April 4, 2003
G.R. No. 140756
Ponente: Callejo Jr.

Principles Involve:
- Aggravating circumstances
- Robbery with homicide

Essential elements:
(a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
(b) 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.

Relevant Law Cited:

- Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659

- Article 14, paragraph 16

FACTS:

On September 28, 1996, the accused boarded at around 3:00 a.m. a Five Star Bus driven by Rodolfo
Cacatian, bound to Pangasinan, in Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City. The accused, Victor and Juan
with guns in hand suddenly stood up and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously with the announcement of
a hold-up, Escote fired his gun upwards. Acuyan, meanwhile, took the gun of a man seated at the back.
Both then went on to take the money and valuables of the passengers, including the bus conductor's
collections in the amount of P6,000.00. Thereafter, the duo approached the man at the back telling him in
the vernacular "Pasensiya ka na pare, papatayin ka namin. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo." They
pointed their guns at him and fired several shots oblivious of the plea for mercy of their victim. After the
shooting, the latter collapsed on the floor. The two (2) then went back at the front portion of the bus
behind the driver's seat and were overheard by the bus driver, Cacatian, talking how easy it was to kill a
man. The robbery and the killing were over in 25 minutes. Upon reaching the Mexico overpass of the
Expressway in Pampanga, the two (2) got off the bus. The driver drove the bus to the Mabalacat Police
Station and reported the incident. During the investigation conducted by the police, it was found out that
the slain passenger was a policeman, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. of the Caloocan City Police Department.

Court finds both accused, Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of Robbery with Homicide

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Robbery with homicide.

RULING:

Yes. The Court finds both accused, Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended and hereby sentences both to suffer the supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify the heirs of
the late SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr.,
PEOPLE v VILLONEZ

November 16, 1998

G.R. No. 122976-77
Ponente: Davide Jr.

Principles Involve: Aggravating Circumstance

Relevant Law Cited: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659

FACTS:

On about the 3rd day of May 1994 in Malabon, Metro Manila, The accused [Regando Villonez y Pascasio,
Ruel Santos y Lapada, John Doe, Peter Doe, Elmer Doe and Roy Doe], conspiring together and mutually
helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength, and being armed with bladed weapons, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one GERARDO LONGASA on the different parts of
the body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which caused his death.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance, treachery should be appreciated.

RULING:

Yes, treachery should be appreciated. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. The overwhelming number of the accused, their use of
weapons against the unarmed victim, and the fact that the victims hands were held behind him preclude
the possibility of any defense by the victim.

The penalty for the murder is reclusion perpetua to death pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance proved in
favor of or against EMERLITO and REGANDO, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLE vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN
January 26, 2007
G.R. No. 169246
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Principles involved: Aggravating circumstances.

Relevant laws cited: ART. 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:

On the 25th day of November 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, Michael, after attending a worship
service at the Iglesia ni Kristo church in his barangay, proceeded home. While Michael was walking
along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant and his two companions, who were
drinking nearby, suddenly approached and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the back
of Michael while his two companions stood in front of Michael.

In an instant, They took the knife and stabbed Michael on the stomach. When Michael fell on the ground,
appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing that the bloodied Michael was no longer moving,
appellant and his two companions fled the scene.

According to the appellant, there was no evidence to show that the appellant and his two companions had
deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack to ensure its execution without risk to
themselves. He claims that if he and his two companions wanted to ensure that no risk would come to
them, then they could have chosen another time and place to attack Michael.

On 12 November 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant of murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by
treachery.

RULING:

Yes. Appellant is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,

Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the circumstances that renders the victim unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.35 It is an aggravating
circumstance that qualifies the killing of a person to murder. Article 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised
Penal Code states the concept and essential elements of treachery as an aggravating circumstance.

There is 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 insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.