Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
By reason of Rep. Act No. 9346, he is spared the death The accused interposed the defense of alibi, that on April 18,
sentence, and entitled to the corresponding reduction of his 1998, he went to a friend’s house in Pangasinan and spent the night
penalty as a consequence of the downgrading of his offense there.
from two (2) counts consummated rape to two (2) counts of
attempted rape. For the six (6) counts of rape, we downgrade ISSUE:
the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility
for parole, pursuant to Rep. Act No. 9346. For each of the Whether or not Velasco was guilty of attempted homicide.
two (2) counts of attempted rape, we downgrade by one
degree lower the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. RULING:
We hold that there being no mitigating or aggravating
The petition is DENIED affirming the decisions of RTC and CA. The
circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor should be
witness and the complainant was able to positively identify that
imposed in it medium period. Consequently, we impose the
new penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day Velasco was the shooter. Thus, it outweighs the alibi of the accused.
of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
4. EMMIE RESAYO Y CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DANNY THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DELOS SANTOS Y FERNANDEZ, appellant.
G.R. No. 135919 May 9, 2003 G.R. NO. 154502, April 27, 2007
Facts: November 6, 1997 in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, Rod Flores FACTS:
was in drinking spree with Narciso Salvador, Marvin Tablate and
Jayvee Rainier, when suddenly, appellant, Danny Delos Santos
At around 1:30 p.m. of 5 February 1989, the group of Braga
emerged from the back of Flores and stabbed him to death with knife.
Fearful for their lives after witnessing the gruesome killing, witnesses had a few drinks and were joking about a certain Bogac. At 4:00 to
De Leon and Tablate only testified two months after the incident 4:30 p.m., Bogac’s brothers, Larry, Cris, and Reyes, and their brother-
happened. in-law Rey arrived at the party to confront the group but a fight did
not ensue. While the group of Braga was on their way home, Larry In the case at bar, the third element of premeditation is lacking. The
headed towards them and tried to stab Aguinaldo but was able to span of 30 minutes or half an hour from the time appellant shot
parry the blow. It instead hit Braga on the left side of his body. Ramon could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation
and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed. The
Aguinaldo ran after Larry but was suddenly stabbed by Resayo in the
court held that the lapse of 30 minutes between the determination to
chest. Then, Esteban saw Reyes stab Braga for the second time below commit a crime and the execution is insufficient for a full meditation
the right nipple. Aguinaldo's stab wound resulted to his death. Braga on the consequences of the act.
sustained mortal wounds that would have caused his death if it were
not for the immediate medical attention. Both of the accused denied The accused is convicted of murder.
the charges against them and interposed the defense of alibi.
5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Whether or not Enrico Valledor was sane at the time of the
ANGELO ZETA, Accused-Appellant. commission of the crime and is therefore liable for murder, frustrated
G.R. No. 178541 March 27, 2008 murder and attempted murder
FACTS: Ruling:
On or about the 28th day of October 1995 in Quezon City, Angelo Zeta 23
and his wife Petronilla Zeta were found conspiring together, In People v. Estrada, it was held that:
confederating with and helping one another, with intent to kill,
attacked, assaulted and employed personal violence to Ramon Garcia
In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a
by shooting the latter with a .45 caliber pistol hitting him on the
different parts of his body which ultimately caused his death. complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Ramon’s killing was attended by The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of
the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and entertaining a criminal intent." He must be deprived of
nocturnity. reason and act without the least discernment because there is
a complete absence of the power to discern or a total
ISSUE: deprivation of freedom of the will.
Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of evident Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who
premeditation in the commission of the crime. invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it
by clear and positive evidence. And the evidence on this point
HELD:
must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or
to the very moment of its execution.
No, the court held that the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated. Evident premeditation qualifies
the killing of a person to murder if the following evidence are present: In the case at bar, accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of
(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b)an overcoming the presumption of sanity at the time of the commission
act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to his resolve; and (c) a of the crime. The following circumstances clearly and unmistakably
sufficient interval of the time between the determination or show that accused-appellant was not legally insane when he
conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon perpetrated the acts for which he was charged: 1) Simplicio Yayen was
the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the positioned nearest to accused-appellant but the latter chose to stab
resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning. Roger and Elsa; 2) Accused-appellant called out the nickname of
Roger before stabbing him; 3) Simplicio Yayen and Antonio
Magbanua who were likewise inside the room were left unharmed; 4)
Accused-appellant, a spurned suitor of Elsa, uttered the words, "Ako Article 8 of the RPC provides that there is conspiracy when
akabales den, Elsa." (I had my revenge, Elsa) after stabbing her; and two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
5) Accused-appellant hurriedly left the room after stabbing the Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the
victims. crime itself, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Direct proof of
a person in agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It is enough
Judging from his acts, accused-appellant was clearly aware and in that at the time of the commission of a crime, all the malefactors had
control of what he was doing as he in fact purposely chose to stab only the same purpose and were united in their execution. Once
the two victims. His obvious motive of revenge against the victims was established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals
accentuated by calling out their names and uttering the words, "I had regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in
my revenge" after stabbing them. Finally, his act of immediately contemplation of the law. The act of one is the act of all.
fleeing from the scene after the incident indicates that he was aware of
the wrong he has done and the consequence thereof. Accused- In this case, all the appellants by their simultaneous
appellant's acts prior to the stabbing incident to wit: crying; collective acts before and after the commission of the crimes were
swimming in the river with his clothes on; and jumping off the united in one common objective, i.e., to kill Eugene and cause injuries
jeepney; were not sufficient to prove that he was indeed insane at the to Arnold for trying to intervene and prevent bloodshed. Hence, all the
time of the commission of the crime. appellants are criminally liable for the death of Eugene and for the
injuries of Arnold. It does not matter who among the appellants
stabbed Eugene or inflicted injuries on Arnold. The act of one is the
Accused is convicted for murder and two counts of attempted murder.
act of the others.
7. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
ARMANDO CABALLERO, RICARDO CABALLERO, However, for the death of Leonilo (Criminal Case No.
MARCIANO CABALLERO, JR., and ROBITO RTC-1217), the appellants are not criminally liable. The prosecution
CABALLERO, accused. failed to adduce evidence that the appellants and the accused Robito
conspired to kill Leonilo. There was no evidence presented by the
ARMANDO CABALLERO, RICARDO CABALLERO, and prosecution to prove that all the appellants assisted the accused
MARCIANO CABALLERO, JR., appellants. Robito in killing Leonilo. As held in People v Flora, for acts done
GR 149028-30. April 2, 2003 outside the contemplation of the conspirators, only the actual
perpetrators are liable.
Facts: In the afternoon of August 3, 1994, Armando, Robito, and
Marciano, Jr., all surnamed Caballero, were having a drinking spree in In Criminal Case No. RTC-1218, the appellants are guilty
the house of their brother Ricardo in the Mondragon Compound. As as co-principals by direct participation of murder, qualified by
Eugene was walking by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, he was treachery. For treachery to be considered as a qualifying circumstance,
suddenly assaulted by the Caballero brothers. Two were armed with the prosecution is burdened to prove that (1) the employment of
knives while one was hitting Eugene with a wooden pole. In the means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to
process, Eugene was stabbed three times. Eugene’s sister saw the defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was
Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene so she shouted for help. Wilma, deliberately or consciously adopted.
who witnessed the whole incident, was shocked to immobility at the
Even a frontal attack is treacherous if it is sudden and the
sudden turn of events. Arnold rushed to the scene but was ganged up
victim is unarmed. The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected
by the Caballero brothers and was stabbed on his forearm. Arnold fled
attack on the unarmed victim. In this case, Eugene was unarmed. He
for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor. Leonilo Broce
had no inkling that he would be waylaid as he sauntered on his way to
rushed to where the commotion was but was stabbed on the chest by
his girlfriend Susana’s house. On the other hand, appellant Armando
Robito, one of the Caballero brothers. Wounded, Leonilo retreated.
was armed with a wooden pole, while appellant Ricardo and accused
The commotion stopped only upon the arrival of Teresito Mondragon
Robito were armed with knives. The attack on the hapless Eugene was
who was able to pacify the Caballero brothers. They all returned to the
swift and unannounced. Undeniably, the appellants killed Eugene
compound. Eugene and Leonilo eventually died from the stab wounds
with treachery.
they sustained. Arnold would have died because of the stab wound on
his chest, were it not for the timely medical intervention. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1219, the appellants are
guilty of frustrated murder. It cannot be denied that the appellants
The trial court found Armando, Ricardo, and Marciano, Jr.
had the intention to kill Arnold. The appellants performed all the acts
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged them as
of execution but the crime was not consummated because of the
principal.
timely medical intervention. Treachery attended the stabbing of
1. (CC No. RTC-1217) For the murder of Leonilo, with Arnold because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and
the attendant aggravating circumstances of sudden. He had no means and there was no time for him to defend
treachery and abuse of superior strength, the himself. In sum, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder.
maximum penalty of death + indemnity;
2. (CC No. RTC-1218) For the murder of Eugene, with The Supreme Court agrees with the Solicitor General that
the attendant aggravating circumstances of the abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery;
treachery and abuse of superior strength, the hence should not be considered as a separate aggravating
maximum penalty of death + indemnity; circumstance in the imposition of the penalty on the appellants. Abuse
3. (CC No. RTC-1219) For frustrated murder, for of superior strength concurring with treachery is absorbed by
having seriously inflicted injuries upon the person treachery.
of Arnold which nearly resulted to his death, an
imprisonment of 12 years, as minimum, to 17 years, 8. RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS,1 petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
four months, and one day. PHILIPPINES, respondent.
3. The trial court's finding that the loading of the gun, the
Facts
cocking of the hammer, and, finally, the pulling of the trigger
constitute a deliberate effort on the part of Gonzalez to use
the gun as a means of a treacherous attack is patently (5) People vs Zeta
erroneous. A single and continuous attack cannot be divided
into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved. Evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the
The entire incident happened in a matter of minutes. There following elements are present: (1) the time when the offender
was no time for Gonzalez to reflect on the mode of attack determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
since he just picked up his gun and alighted from his car and the culprit clung to his resolve; and (3) a sufficient interval of time
shot at the FX a few seconds after Dino and Andres started between the determination or conception and the execution of the
shouting at each other. crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to
allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he
The means employed for the commission of the crime or the desired to hearken to its warning.
mode of attack must be shown to have been consciously or
deliberately adopted by the accused to insure the (8) Palaganas vs People
consummation of the crime and at the same time eliminate
or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim. The unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance. An
Accordingly, it has been consistently held by this court that aggravating circumstance was provided for under P.D. No. 1866 as
chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at amended by R.A. 8294 which is a special law that was passed stating
the spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated that: if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
altercations are generally not attended by treachery for firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating
treacherous mode of attack. circumstance.