PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

SUMAOY
G.R. No 105961. October 22, 1996

Subject Matter:
Art 14, Par 1 & 16 of RPC
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to reverse the decision of the trial court.

SC Decision:
Modified; Trial Court’s decision: from Murder with 2 aggravating circumstances to Homicide with no
aggravating circumstance.

FACTS:

 On July 9, 1988, Zandro Vargas was seen with 4 other men, Pacifico Sumaoy with 3 other unidentified men.
Patricio Jacobe saw Zandro Vargas, Sumaoy and 3 other unidentified men at the corner of Roxas and
Sobrecary Streets.
 Later on, Jacode heard a sound gunshot. When he turned to find out where the sound came from, he saw
Zandro Vargas running towards Roxas Street with his right arm bleeding. Zandro Vargas fled and tried to seek
refuge at the Try Me beauty parlor, but he was overtaken by accused-appellant who dragged him towards a
waiting tricycle.
 Accused-appellant had a gun. The accused-appellant and three other men then boarded the tricycle taking
Zandro Vargas with them. Jacobe Allegedly heard one of accused-appellant's companion say that they were
taking Zandro to the hospital. Later that evening Jacobe learned that Zandro was found dead in a kangkong
field near the Davao Visayan Village.
 Wilbert Vargas, brother of the deceased, also rushed to the scene to aid his brother after being told that his
brother was being beaten up. He vitally saw the same as what Jacobe have stated with minor non-bearing
differences. Wilbert tried to come to the aid of his brother but accused-appellant pointed his gun at him,
causing him to run home in fear and informed his parents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty of Murder with 2 aggravating circumstances (treachery and
taking advantage of official position)?

HELD:
Modified; Pacifico Sumaoy is not guilty of murder with 2 aggravating circumstances but guilty of Homicide.

As to Treachery and Murder,

While the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused-appellant for the killing of victim Zandro
Vargas, we think he cannot be held liable for murder because of the absence of evidence as to the manner of the actual
killing. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which
resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it cannot be established from mere suppositions that the
accused perpetrated the killing with treachery. The evidence shows that the aggression against the victim began when
he was still at the J Spot Carinderia. As a matter of fact, according to Patricio Jacobe, Jr., the deceased was trying to
flee from the accused-appellant when the latter shot him, thus indicating that the victim had been forewarned of a
greater aggression against him. The assault on the victim cannot be said to have been made in a sudden or unexpected
manner so as to justify a finding of treachery

As to taking advantage of public position to facilitate the crime,

The evidence shows that the aggression against the victim began when he was still at the J Spot Carinderia. As a matter
of fact, according to Patricio Jacobe, Jr., the deceased was trying to flee from the accused-appellant when the latter
shot him, thus indicating that the victim had been forewarned of a greater aggression against him. The assault on the
victim cannot be said to have been made in a sudden or unexpected manner so as to justify a finding of treachery
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUBIO
G.R. No. 118315 June 20, 1996

Subject Matter:
Art 14, Par 3 of RPC (Insult or Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex)

Nature of the Case:

Seeking to reverse the decision of the trial court.

SC Decision:
Modified;
Trial Court’s Decision: Robbery with Homicide
SC Decision: Homicide only + Insult or Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex

FACTS:

 On May 17, 1992, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, witness Anastacio Garbo, whose house is located in
Bagay, Daanbantayan, Cebu, heard shouts for help coming from the house of the victim, Silvina Cuyos. The
victim and witness Garbo are neighbors, their houses being about 25 to 30 meters from each other. Upon
hearing the shouts for help, witness Garbo went out of his house and approached the house of the victim.
When he was about seven (7) meters away from the house of the victim, he saw the accused wrestle with
the victim.
 His impression is that the victim and the accused are quarelling or fighting each other. Upon seeing this, he
heard his parents and sisters shouting at him telling him not to approach any closer to the house of the victim
because it may be a robbery and the perpetrator or perpetrators may have firearms. So witness Garbo went
to the neighboring houses to seek for assistance. Shortly thereafter, witness Garbo, together with four
companions, namely: Paulino Ygot, Alfonso Rosello, Bimbo Colina and Randy Ygot proceeded to the house of
the victim. Garbo walked ahead of his companions.
 When he reached the back portion of the house, he saw the accused wearing a black tee-shirt walking away
from the house of the victim. Witness Garbo was about five (5) meters away when he saw accused. Witness
Garbo did not make any sound and instead, together with his companions, they proceeded to the kitchen of
the house of the victim where they saw the victim lying on the ground. He noticed that the victim sustained
injuries at the neck just below the jaw about three (3) inches from the right ear. The cheek of the victim was
bleeding. An old water jar (banga) was broken.
 The victim was still alive although not conscious. Witness Garbo did not go up the house of the victim anymore
instead he proceeded to the town to secure transportation. He came back in a fire truck together with some
policemen. Thereupon, the victim was brought to the Daanbantayan Community Hospital. The victim was later
transferred to Verallo Memorial Hospital at Bogo, Cebu. Upon the advice of the doctor in said hospital, the
victim was transferred to Cebu City, first, at the Southern Islands Hospital and then to the Cebu Doctor's
Hospital where the victim died in the afternoon of the next day.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty Robbery with Homicide?

HELD:
Modified; accused is guilty of Homicide and aggravating by “Insult or Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex” but not
Robbery.

As to the appreciation of Homicide,

The appellant should have been convicted only of the crime of homicide, and not of robbery with homicide. Our settled
rule is that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, robbery must be proven as conclusively as the
killing itself, otherwise, the crime would only be homicide or murder as the case may be. A perusal of the entire records
of this case convinces us that robbery was not duly established. The Information mentioned of gold earrings, gold ring
and cash money being taken by the appellant from Silvina Cuyos. Yet no conclusive evidence proving the physical act
of asportation thereof by the appellant has been presented by the prosecution. Anastacio Garbo himself, the principal
witness for the prosecution, never claimed to have seen any of these items being taken from Silvina Cuyos. Neither
did he affirm that appellant was carrying anything when the latter left the house of the victim on that night.

The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of Maximo Cuyos who testified to have discovered the loss of these
items when he made a check on the victim's house. He admitted, however, that such discovery was made only at about
eleven o'clock in the evening of the following day and not on the same night the incident happened. There is a
probability, therefore, that during the interim other persons could have surreptitiously entered into the victim's house,
now uninhabited, and could have taken therefrom these valuable items.

As to the appreciation of aggravating circumstance of “Insult or Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex”

Considering the fact that Silvina Cuyos was already sixty (60) years old at the time she was killed by the appellant, who
was then only twenty three (23), the aggravating circumstance of disrespect due the offended party on account of her
age must be appreciated.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LACANIETA
G.R. No. 124299 April 12, 2000

Subject Matter:
Art 14, Par 3, 6 & 21 of RPC
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to reverse the decision of the trial court.

SC Decision:
Modified; Trial Court’s decision affirmed. From forcible abduction with rape and aggravating: nighttime (Par 6)
and cruelty (Par 21) present to forcible abduction with rape and aggravating: nighttime (Par 6) and cruelty (Par 21)
NOT present but aggravating of dwelling (Par 3) present. See below.

Trial Court’s Decision: Forcible abduction with rape + nighttime + cruelty

SC Decision: Forcible abduction with rape + dwelling

FACTS:

 On March 20, 1987 about 7 o'clock in the evening, the Wilma Tayo (sic) and her mother Mrs. Consorcia Tayo
were in their house at Sitio Bulho, Cubay-Sermon, Sibalom, Antique. They were about to eat supper when
someone called to them asking to light a cigarette. Wilma Tayo asked who was calling and the answer was "I
am Junior, let me light my cigarette". Wiima Tayo opened the door slightly and there stood accused Jerry
Ballenas alias Marlon Marquez. Accused did not light his cigarette but instead blew the gas lamp and put out
the light. He held Wilma Tayo by the wrist.
 Accused Jerry Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma Tayo and Consorcia Tayo. Accused told Wilma Tayo
to accompany him to Maria Leong-on, his girlfriend. Wilma Tayo refused as they were about to eat supper.
Consorcia Tayo also told her daughter, Wilma Tayo not go out because it was already dark. Accused Jerry
Ballenas forced Wilma Tayo to go out with him and struck the hand of Consorcia Tayo and pointed the handgun
at her. Accused held Wilma Tayo tightly and took her away.
 Consorcia Tayo sought the help of a neighbor, Andres Mallorca, whose house is about 20 meters away from
her house but to no avail, Andres Mallorca shut the door on her for fear of Jerry Ballenas as the latter is known
as a member of the dreaded Sparrow Unit of the New People's Army.
 The following morning, Consorcia Tayo reported the abduction of Wilma Tayo to her son-in-law who is a
member of the Integrated National Police. She learned from Aurelio Gamad that her daughter Wilma Tayo was
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of the incident.

ISSUE:
WON the accused indeed committed forcible abduction with rape?

HELD:
Yes, modified; guilty of complex crime of forcible abduction with rape with aggravating circumstance of
dwelling but not of nighttime and cruelty.

As to the appreciation of complex crime of forcible abduction with rape,

Court is convinced that Ballenas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. His alibi is weak against an eyewitness. An
Established positive identification of an eyewitness prevails over alibi of the accused.

In this case, Consorcia, the mother of WILMA, positively identified BALLENAS as the person who went to her house
and abducted her daughter at gunpoint that fateful night.
Moreover, the testimony of Florencio fortifies the theory of the prosecution that after the abduction of WILMA,
BALLENAS together with LACANIETA, SALVADOR and GAMAD raped and stabbed WILMA. He was passing through the
street of Barangay Catmon, Sibalom, antique when he saw "Boy Alog" (LACANIETA) lying on top of WILMA. The hands
of WILMA were then held down by BALLENAS and SALVADOR. Surprised by the presence of Florencio, LACANIETA
stood up and told the former that they were just having a "happy-happy". Florencio then left and after reaching three
brazas, he hid to see what the group was up to. Florencio testified that he thereafter saw four men take turns in
ravishing and stabbing WILMA.
As to the non-appreciation of nighttime,

BALLENAS blew off the lighted kerosene lamp offered by WILMA to BALLENAS to light his cigarette. However, Consorcia
testified that there was some light coming from another kerosene lamp upstairs that "reflected the door" and that
Consorcia also had a kerosene lamp with her that BALLENAS also put off. The scene of the crime was sufficiently
illuminated, thus, nocturnity cannot be appreciated. The prosecution also failed to prove that nighttime was specially
sought by the accused or taken advantage of by him or that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime,
circumstances which must be present before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be appreciated. See People
vs. Pallarco

As to the non-appreciation of cruelty,

The aggravating circumstance of cruelty is present when "the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission". There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation
of the criminal act. In People vs. Ferrer, the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was not appreciated in the absence of
positive proof that the appellants inflicted the thirteen (13) wounds upon the victim in such a way that he was made
to agonize before they rendered any of the blows which snuffed out his life. In this case, WILMA sustained ten (10)
stab wounds, but these multiple wounds alone do not prove that the accused deliberately inflicted the injuries to
prolong unnecessarily her physical suffering. Thus, the trial court improperly considered the aggravating circumstance
of cruelty in the case at bar.

As to the appreciation of dwelling,

Consorcia testified that her house has a ladder that leads to the main door; that BALLENAS was at the main door when
he called WILMA; and that when WILMA refused to go with BALLENAS, it was there that BALLENAS forced WILMA to
go with him. Without a doubt, WILMA was abducted while she was still in her house. Thus, dwelling may be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance considering that it is not necessary that the accused should have entered the dwelling
of the victim.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BALANSI
G.R. No. 77284 July 19, 1990

Subject Matter:
Art 14, Par 3, 13, 15 & 16 of RPC
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to reverse the decision of the trial court.

SC Decision:
Modified; Trial Court’s decision affirmed. However, evident premeditation, treachery and means employed to
weaken the defense were not appreciated. Decision is simple homicide aggravated by dwelling.

FACTS:

 The accused-appellant was then the Barangay Captain of Balinciagao Norte, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao, and a
member of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), while the victim was the Provincial Development Officer
of Kalinga-Apayao. The incident took place during a wedding celebration at Balinciagao Sur, Pasil, at or about
5:30 or 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
 It appears that the victim, a nephew of the appellant, was then sleeping at the house of his parents located
opposite the house where the wedding celebration was being held. About 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
Beatrice Canao, a Balinciagao resident, saw the accused, her uncle, standing at the door of the house of the
victim's parents, also her relatives, armed with a gun. She inquired what he was doing there and he allegedly
replied that he was waiting for the victim. She then entered the premises to locate an old newspaper with
which to wrap food, a rice cake, when she saw the victim asleep. When she left, she saw the accused at the
doorway. After disposing of her rice cake, she heard two gunshots, fired at an interval of two or three
seconds, emanating apparently from the house, to which she shortly rushed. She allegedly met the accused
at the steps leading to the second floor, brandishing his rifle. She allegedly shouted "putok, putok!" 5 She
then reported the matter to the police.
 Yulo Asbok a fellow CHDF member of the accused and likewise a Balinciagao resident, also heard two
gunshots ring that afternoon. He said that he was three meters from the house where the gunshot sounds
seemed to have originated. He allegedly proceeded there but was met by the accused at the steps. They
allegedly grappled for possession of the rifle, which, he alleged, was still warm and reeked of gunpowder. He
was able to wrest possession, after which, the accused allegedly ran away and fled to Pogon, also in
Balinciagao. He later learned that the victim had been shot and that he died at Lubuagan Hospital.
 Revenge was the motive of the accused which was a tradition among Kalingas (of which both the accused
and victim were members), which, however, could be prevented by the dusa, meaning, apparently,
intervention and mediation by community elders.
 Accused alleges he was there, precisely, to investigate the matter, and armed himself for the purpose, but
was stopped by Yulo Asbok and he was then regarded and accused as the one who shot the victim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty or Murder with aggravating circumstances –evident
premeditation/treachery, dwelling & means employed to weaken the defense?
HELD:
Modified; accused is guilty of simple homicide with aggravating to dwelling.

As to non-appreciation of treachery, evident premeditation & means employed to weaken the defense,

The Court, however, is not convinced that the accused-appellant had committed murder arising from treachery,
evident premeditation, and means employed to weaken the defense of the victim. As to treachery, jurisprudence is
ample that the manner of attack must be shown.

While there are testimonies to the effect that the victim was "fast asleep", we cannot safely presume that he was still
in that condition when the accused sprung his attack. And since nobody saw the actual shooting, we cannot justifiably
say that the victim was still actually still asleep at that time. Neither is evident premeditation a qualifying circumstance.
In appreciating evident premeditation, it is necessary to show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit
the offense; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient interval
of time between the determination and execution. The prior determination of the accused to do away with the victim
has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the prosecution.

That the accused also employed means to weaken the victim's defenses is likewise missing in this case. As we said,
there was no actual eyewitness to the killing and hence, we cannot say for sure, based on the evidence before us, that
the appellant did employ means to weaken the defense of the victim.

As to the appreciation of dwelling,

Although the victim was not shot in his house (his parents owned it) it has been held that the dwelling place need not
be owned by the victim.

"Dwelling" is considered an aggravating circumstance because primarily of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to
human abode. According to one commentator, one's dwelling place is a "sanctuary worthy of respect" and that one
who slanders another in the latter's house is more guilty than if he who offends him elsewhere. However, one does
not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the house of another because as his invited guest, he, the stranger,
is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is,
even for a brief moment, "home" to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PAREJA
G.R. No. 88043 July 19, 1990

Subject Matter:
Art 14, Par 3 & 6 of RPC
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to reverse the decision of the trial court.

SC Decision:
Affirmed. Attempted Robbery with Homicide with aggravating circumstance of dwelling but not nighttime.

FACTS:

 The family of 54-year-old Generoso Jacob resided in a one-bedroom house in Pawa, Legazpi City. At around
2:00 oclock in the morning of November 22, 1986, Generoso was asleep on a folding bed in the kitchen,
three steps below the living room where his wife Amada, and their children Shirley, Alberto, Marlene and
Sabina were sleeping.
 A six-and-a-half feet high partition separated the living room from the 2 x 3 meters bedroom which was
lighted by a 50-watt bulb. Asleep in the bedroom. About four meters away from the kitchen, were
Generoso’s daughter Emelita, her husband Romeo Ramirez, and their baby Marlon.
 Kept in the said bedroom was a 14 Sanyo color TV which had been brought from Saudi Arabia by Generoso’s
son, Rafael. In the living room was a betamax with three components.
 The family was roused from sleep by shouts of Gising kayo, huwag sumigaw! three masked intruders had
gained entry into the house. Amada saw one of them asking Sabina for the betamax. The same fellow tried
to lift and carry off the machine but it proved to be too heavy for him. Almost without thought, Sabina
snatched off his mask and recognized him to be Antonio Pareja, who used to frequent their house and take
lunch at Emelitas store, as he was even one of Emelitas gangmates. The latter tried to stab Sabina but she
evaded the thrust and swiftly jumped out the window.
 Emelita was awakened by her father’s cries of tabangi ako nindo (please help me). Instinctively, Emelita also
screamed for help from their neighbors, but one of the robbers poked a white-and-gold colored gun at her
sentido (temple), and neither she nor her husband could lift a finger. The gunwielders face was covered by a
t-shirt, except for his nose. Incidentally, Emelita recognized the T-shirt to be hers, which she had left hanging
on the clothesline outside the house. The man uttered. “Huwag kayong sisigaw kung ayaw ninyong
mamatay, nasaan yung TV?” When she answered “diyan”, the man tried to lift the television set. Failing to do
so, he called out, Ger, tulungan mo ako. But no one responded to his call. While he was thus distracted,
Emelita grabbed at the T-shirt and un-masked him, thus recognizing him to be herein appellant Toledo. She
thus confirmed her earlier suspicion about his identity based on his body build and voice. As the neighbors
were starting to respond to her cries for help, the trio fled empty-handed.
 Hearing her husband’s moans, Amada went to the kitchen, where she saw Generoso lying in a pool of blood
on the cemented floor. She embraced him but he merely looked at her, tried to open his mouth and
expired.He had bled profusely from the wound on his chest.
 Generoso was autopsied at the Funeraria Oro by Dr. Cesar Chua of the Albay Provincial Hospital, who found
that the victim sustained a 2-cm. penetrating stab wound at the level of the nipple, left parasternal line; a 2-
cm. incised wound at the pulmonary arterial trunk; another 1 cm. incised wound at the outlet of the right
ventricle, and hemoperitoneum. Dr. Chua opined that Generoso’s wounds could have been caused by only
one sharp pointed and long instrument.
 A police photographer took pictures of the damaged bamboo portion of the kitchen used for drying dishes,
which the robbers detached in order to gain entry into the house.
 Appellant swore that in the evening of November 22, 1986, he attended the wake of Nerry Armario in
Bogtong, Legazpi City, and he stayed there until past 3:00 oclock early morning of the following day.
 On March 6, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision; holding that appellant’s denial and alibi could not
prevail over the positive identification by Emelita.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty of Attempted Robbery with Homicide with aggravating
circumstances – dwelling and nighttime?

HELD:
Modified; accused is guilty of Attempted Robbery with Homicide with aggravating circumstances of dwelling
but not nighttime.

As to the appreciation of attempted robbery with homicide,

Robbery was the intended purpose of the intruders trespass into the residence of the Jacobs. Generoso Jacobs killing
was on the occasion of a robbery which, however, was not consummated.

The failure to cart away the goods due to their weight (something the culprits had not taken into account) may not be
considered as voluntary desistance from the commission of the crime so as to remove the element of asportation from
the complex crime charged. Such failure to consummate the robbery was not caused solely by their own volition and
inabilities. It was likewise brought about by factors such as their unmasking and the arrival of neighbors who
respondent to Emelitas shouts for help. These circumstances forced them to flee, leaving behind the objects.
Appellant is liable for attempted robbery with homicide even if he was not himself the author of the killing of Generoso
Jacob, for lack of evidence showing that he endeavored to prevent such slaying. Thus, the general rule applies that
whenever homicide is committed on the occasion or as a consequence of robbery, all those who took part as principals
in the robbery shall be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually
take part in the homicide. The same principle applies even if the crime committed is attempted robbery with homicide

As to the non-appreciation of nighttime,

The aggravating circumstance of nighttime alleged in the Information was not conclusively proven. For nocturnity to
be considered as such circumstance, it must have been particularly sought by the accuse or taken advantage of by him
to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his immunity from capture or otherwise to facilitate his getaway

As to the appreciation of dwelling,

Nonetheless, we find that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling had been duly proven. Although dwelling (morada)
is considered as inherent in crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling
and robbery in an inhabited house, it has been held as aggravating in robbery with homicide because the author
thereof could have accomplished the heinous deed of snuffing out the victims life without having to violate his
domicile.

***AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE ***

*** END ***
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CAMANO
G.R. No. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982

Subject Matter:
Art 15, Par 3 of RPC
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to change decision from Murder to Homicide in each case w/o aggravating circumstances.

SC Decision:
Modified.
Trial Court’s Decision: Murder (2 counts) + evident premeditation + treachery + abuse of superior strength +
intoxication as alternating aggravating
SC Decision: Murder (2 counts) + intoxication as alternating mitigating (treachery inherent)

FACTS:
 In the barrio of Nato, Municipality of Sagñay, Province of Camarines Sur, between the hours of four and five
o'clock in the afternoon, after the accused had been drinking liquor, he stabbed twice the victim Godofredo
Pascua with a bolo, called in the vernacular Bicol "palas" which is a sharp bladed and pointed instrument while
the latter was walking alone along the barrio street almost infront of the store of one Socorro Buates. The
victim, Godofredo Pascua, sustained two mortal wounds for which he died instantaneously.
 After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua, the accused proceeded to the seashore of the barrio,
and on finding Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house, in a kneeling position, with
both arms on top of the fence, and his head stooping down hacked the latter with the same bolo, first on the
head, and after the victim fell and rolled to the ground, after said blow, he continued hacking him, until he lay
prostrate on the ground, face up, when the accused gave him a final thrust of the bolo at the left side of the
chest above the nipple causing instant death. Likewise, it is an undisputed fact that three years prior to this
incident, the two victims had a misunderstanding with the accused while fishing along Sagnay River.
 During this occasion it appears that the accused requested Godofredo Pascua to tow his fishing boat with the
motor boat owned by Mariano Buenaflor but the request was refused by both. This refusal greatly offended
and embittered the accused against the victims. From this time on, the accused begrudged the two, and
entertained personal resentment against them. And although on several occasions, the accused was seen at
the game table with Godofredo Pascual drinking liquor, the friendly attitude towards Pascua, seems to be
merely artificial than real, more so, with respect to Mariano Buenaflor whom he openly detested.
 He consistently refused to associate since then with the two victim especially, Mariano Buenaflor. In fact, no
less than ten attempts were made by Amado Payago, a neighbor, inviting the accused for reconciliation with
the victims but were refused. Instead, defendant when intoxicated or drunk, used to challenge Mariano
Buenaflor to a fight and announce his evil intention to kill them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty of 2 counts of Murder with aggravating circumstance of
intoxication?
HELD:
Modified; 2 counts of murder with evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength, intoxication
as alternating aggravating are changed to 2 counts of murder with intoxication as alternating mitigating (treachery
inherent).

As to the non-appreciation of evident premeditation,

There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully planned by the offender, when he prepared
beforehand the means which he deemed suitable for carrying it into execution, and when he had sufficient time
dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences, and when there has been a concerted plan. It has also been
held that evident premeditation requires proof of the following: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit
the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will. 8 In the instant case, it cannot be stated that the
killing of Pascua and Buenaflor was a preconceived plan. There is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill Pascua
and Buenaflor was hatched or what time had elapsed before the plan was carried out. As there is no direct evidence
of the planning or preparation in the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor and of the marked persistence to accomplish that
plan, the trial court's conclusion cannot be sustained.

As to the appreciation of treachery (qualified as murder),

Amado Payago categorically declared that Filomeno Camano attacked Godofredo Pascua from behind, a method which
has ensured the accomplishment of the criminal act without any risk to the perpetrator arising from the defense that
his victim may put up. With respect to Mariano Buenaflor, the evidence shows that he was attacked while in a kneeling
position, with his arms on top of the gate of the fence surrounding his hut and his head was "stooping down." He was
hacked on the head, causing him to fall to the ground, and then successively hacked and stabbed without respite, as
he lay on the ground, until he died. The attack was also sudden, unexpected, and lethal, such as to disable and
incapacitate the victim from putting up any defense.

As to the non-appreciation of superior strength,

The rule is already settled that abuse of superiority is absorbed in treachery.

As to the non-appreciation of intoxication as alternating mitigating,

Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan
to commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. 16 A
habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and
confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens individual resistance to evil thought and
undermines will-power making its victim a potential evildoer. The records of these cases do not show that the appellant
was given to excessive use of intoxicating drinks although he used to get drunk every now and then.

The intoxication of the appellant not being habitual, and considering that the said appellant was in a state of
intoxication at the time of the commission of the felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication should be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUA CHU
GR No. 34917 September 7, 1931

Subject Matter:
Absolutory causes and similar situations – Art 6(3), 7, 16, 20, 247, 280, 332, 344
Nature of the Case:
Seeking to reverse decision of the trial court finding the appellants guilty of illegal importation of opium with
4 years of imprisonment and P10,000 fine.

SC Decision:
Affirmed. Appellants guilty as charged and Samson’s act is an entrapment and not an instigation.

FACTS:
 Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hongkong, who represented agents
of the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing 3,252 tins. He collaborated with Juan Samson, chief of
the customs secret service of Cebu, & Joaquin Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6,000
for the opium to be released safely from Customs.

 On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that
the former consult the real owners of the shipment on how to proceed the payment of P6,000 & will come
over to Samson house on Dec. 17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners.

 On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal
requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between Samson & Uy Se Teung. On the night of
Dec. 17, 1929, Captain Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves
behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung and
Lua Chu.

Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. important facts:

1. Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium.
2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan and another located in Amoy.
3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy Se Tieng.
4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in Europe, with Lua Chu and
agreed on the business of shipping the Opium.

 The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain Buencosejo
showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu &
confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3,252 tins).

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in excluding Juan Samson as one of the accused more so an instigator?
HELD:
Judgment affirmed. Juan Samson’s act is an entrapment and not an instigation.

Appellants contended that Samson induced them to import the opium.

 A public official shall be involved in the crime if:
o He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
o Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders
before he obtained the profits in mind.
o He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the
instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders.
 Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited drugs, the ff should be
noted that held Samson not guilty for the crime:
 o The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or
participation of Juan Samson.
o Did not help the accused to successfully implement their plan rather, Samson assured the seizure of
the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers.
 This is not a case where an innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but it is
simply a trap set to catch a criminal.

NOTE:

Entrapment
1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions
2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual crime scene.
3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained
the profits in mind.

Instigation: This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners:
a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
b. Doesn’t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders before he
obtained the profits in mind.
c. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of
the crime and to arrest the offenders.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PHELPS
G.R. No. L-5728 August 11, 1910

Subject Matter:
Absolutory causes and similar situations – Art 6(3), 7, 16, 20, 247, 280, 332, 344

Nature of the Case:

Seeking to reverse decision of the Trial Court.

SC Decision:
Reversed. The appellant is not guilty of this crime due to instigation by witness Homer G. Smith.

FACTS:
 While in international saloon in Jolo, Homer G. Smith (the lone prosecution witness) heard James O. Phelps
(the accused) smokes opium in some occasions. Smith asked the accused if Phelps smoke opium. Phelps
answered yes. Smith said that he wanted to smoke opium. On the first invitation by the accused Phelps, he
was not able to prepare a room for smoking.
 They made another agreement and went together at a certain house in Tulay. A Chinaman prepared the room
and the pipe for smoking. Smith gave the Chinaman P2.00. The Chinaman gave the pipe to Smith. Smith then
left, with the pipe, and reported the accused to the Justice of peace. Phelps was later arrested.
 The Chinaman corroborated the testimony of the accused that Smith visits him (Phelps) seeking where he
(Smith) can smoke opium. Also, the attending doctor testified that Phelps was a strong, robust man and
presents no appearance of an opium smoker.
 The Court of First Instance convicted Phelps of violating Act. No. 1761. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the CFI erred in convicting Phelps of violating Act. No. 1761?

HELD:
Reversed. The appellant is not guilty of this crime due to instigation by witness Homer G. Smith.

The commission of the crime was intended by Smith and Phelps was only induced in its commission.
Phelps is only charged with having smoked opium this one time in the house of the Chinaman, and the prosecution
rests its case solely upon the testimony of the witness Smith, who was an employee of Bureau of Internal Revenue,
secretly acting in that capacity in Jolo. Smith stated to the accused that he (Smith) was desirous of smoking. He urged
the accused to have the Chinaman make arrangements so they both could smoke.

If he had, by those means, induced the appellant to sell opium or to exhibit in his possession either opium or any of
the prohibited paraphernalia, Smith’s testimony would be more reasonable, since the mere possession of the drug or
any of the prohibited paraphernalia is a violation of the law itself. It is not contended that the accused had in his
possession any of these things.

Smith only suggested the commission of this crime but he (Smith) stated that he desired to commit the same offense
and would pay his part of the expense necessary for the commission of the prohibited act.

When an employee of the government, as in this case, and according to his own testimony, encourages or induces the
persons to commit a crime in order to prosecute them, such conduct is reprehensible.

Appellant Phelps is found not guilty. Lower court judgment reversed and the appellant acquitted.