Cruelty

43. People v. Guerrero (389 SCRA 389)

Facts:
 Orlando Guerrero, Jr., also known as Pablo, together with his father Orlando Guerrero, Sr., nicknamed
Dino, was accused of murder. The accuseds beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim Ernesto
Ocampo, which caused his death.
 Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. Orlando interposed self-defense while his father, Dino,
denied any complicity in the killing.
 According to the witness, Jacalne, he was informed that one Dino Guerrero was inside the house
nearby. Dino Guerrero came out with his hands extended forward. Before Dino was handcuffed,
according to the witness, he said that it was his son who had killed the victim.
 Further, Jacalne testified that appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr., was not at the scene of the crime during
their investigation. But upon their return to the police station, appellant was already there. Appellant
admitted killing the victim, according to Jacalne, by clubbing the victim first with the wooden stick, and
then cutting his head and his penis with a knife.
 Another witness, Ireneo Acierto, appellants brother-in-law, testified that while he was resting in his
house, he heard someone screaming. When he looked out from his window, he saw that the person
screaming was his sister-in-law, Ana. He went out of the house and went near the porch of the
Guerreros, where he saw Ernesto Ocampos head about to be severed by appellant.
 When the head was cut off, appellant placed the same on the right side of the victims trunk. After
that, appellant cut off Ernestos penis. Ireneo noticed that while the head was being severed, the victim
was lying down on the floor, but not moving. Ireneo then told appellant, That is enough, bayaw. Stop
it. According to the witness, his wife Ana was also saying, that is enough, Manong. Appellant angrily
turned to Ireneo, telling him not to interfere or else he might also be implicated. Ireneo hurriedly
went away after that. Ireneo did not see his father-in-law, Dino, at the time of the incident and did
not know where Dino was.

The trial court convicted Orlando Guerrero, Jr. of murder while his father Dino was acquitted.

Issue: WON the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and/or
outraging and scoffing the corpse in order to classify the killing as murder despite failure of the prosecution to
allege the same in the information

Ruling: NO. Thus, we hold that in the present case, the trial court did not err when it found neither treachery
nor evident premeditation. However, the trial court found there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at
the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder.

As established by the testimony of witnesses, appellant first severed the victims head before his penis was cut-
off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act of deliberately and
sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely
increasing the victim's suffering.72 As testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her medical certificate,
Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act
constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was perpetrated when the victim was already dead.

What now remains to be considered is whether the act of cutting-off the victims penis constitutes the
qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
Appellant strongly takes exception to this finding. He states that this circumstance was not properly alleged
with specificity in the information, thereby violating the right of the accused to be informed. Appellant
contends that beheading and/or cutting-off the penis were merely mentioned in the information as the cause
of death but not as a qualifying circumstance.73cräläwvirtualibräry

For the appellee, the OSG avers that the allegations in the complaint, that the accused beheaded and cut off
the penis of the victim serves the function of stating specifically the act which constitutes outraging or scoffing
at the victims corpse.

On this point, we agree with the OSGs assertion and interpretation. While the information did not allege this
qualifying circumstance in the exact words of the law, outraging the dead and scoffing at the victims corpse
are nevertheless deducible from the recital in the information. 74 The sequence of events as attack, assault,
club, beheaded and cut the penis of the victim, Ernesto Ocampo alleged in the information points to the
outrage committed on the dead.

To conclude, appellants conviction for the crime of murder has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Relationships
44. PEOPLE v ATOP; G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban

FACTS:
 The accused is the common law husband of the victim’s grandmother.
 Sometime in 1991, Regina Guafin (10) told her grandmother that his grandfather, Alejandro Atop,
inserted his finger into her vagina. Aside from not believing her, Trinidad (the grandmother) told her it
was just a “manifestation of fatherly concern”
 Oct. 9, 1992 [1st rape]: As Regina (then 12 y/o) was approaching Atop, he suddenly rushed towards her,
removed her panty and inserted his male organ into her vagina. Aside from gagging her, he was also
carrying he knife so she couldn’t do anything. This happened again sometime in 1993 [2 nd rape] and on
Dec. 26, 1994 [3rd rape]. Every time she told her grandmother but Trinidad wouldn’t believe her.
 Dec. 31, 1994 [4th rape]: She was molested in the presence of her aunt and Atop’s two nieces. Regina
and the two nieces kicked him so he stopped.
 January 1995: She was at her other grandfather’s house when the accused came and tried to force her
to go home. He kept on pulling her until they reached a waiting shed where the accused smashed her
to the concrete wall. This explained all the bruises and abrasions in her body upon medical
examination.
 She only reported such incidents in January 1995 because she was afraid Atop will kill her. She did not
exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement, she only said that a finger was inserted) at first because
Atop was still not apprehended (he was hiding). When finally he was arrested, she requested the fiscal
to re-investigate and then told them what was really done to her.
 He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and was sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua and death.
In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he was found not guilty for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUES: WON relationship is present as an aggravating circumstance?

RULING:
1. NO.
  There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the two.
 Scope of relationship:
o Spouse
o Ascendant
o Descendant
o Legitimate, natural or adopted sibling
o Relative by affinity in the same degree (in-laws)
 Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said NO.
The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law relationship with the victims
grandmother aggravated the penalty. We hold, however, that Sec. 11 of RA 7659 prescribes the capital
penalty in rape, only when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, and not by reason of any other kinship. On the other hand,
relationship as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art. 15 of the Revised Penal Code encompasses
only the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, and relative by
affinity in the same degrees. Outside these enumerations and consistent with the doctrine that criminal laws
must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, no other relationship, kinship or association between the
offender and the victim may aggravate the imposable penalty for the crime committed. The fact, then, that
the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellants live-in partner cannot justify the
imposition of death upon the rapist.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE: (Just in case mag ask si Atty)
WON the death penalty is rightfully applied: NO.
 For rape, it can only be given if the victim is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent.
 And since in this, Atop was the common law spouse of the grandmother, still nope.
 SC’s excuse: penal laws are construed in favor of the accused
(Because Atop was appealing that the RTC was wrong in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt)
WHEREFORE, SC affirms the decision of the RTC but modifies the penalties to 3 counts of reclusion perpetua.
44.5 People v. Marcos

Facts: Accused-appellant Cesar Marcos (Cesar) and the victim Virgilio Marcos (Virgilio) are brothers and they
live in the same house at Bayambang, Infanta Pangasinan.

Evidence for the prosecution shows that Fernando Marcos, Jr. (Fernando) was resting under a mango tree a
few meters away from the house of the Marcoses. After a while, his uncle Virgilio arrived and proceeded to
the artesian well (jetmatic) located just at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down to put on the ground the
tools he was carrying. It was at this precise moment that Fernando saw his uncle Cesar come out of the
kitchen door with a bolo in hand and suddenly hacked the unsuspecting Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was hit
on the nape of the neck which caused him to fall to the ground. Then Cesar hacked him again and this time
Virgilio was hit on the right side of the head. Fernando rushed to his uncle Cesar and asked why he did that,
to which Cesar replied "You go away if you do not want to get involved." Out of fear, Fernando could only
watch helplessly at Virgilio as the latter was asking him for help. Then Fernando heard Cesar tell Virgilio "Your
life is not enough to pay the money you squandered."
Fernando ran to the house of Kagawad Solomon del Fierro (Solomon) to ask for assistance. After learning of
the hacking incident, Solomon went with Fernando to go to the Marcoses' house. On the road, they met the
Chief of the Civilian Voluntary Organization, Catalino Custodio (Catalino), heading towards the same direction.
When they reached the house, they saw Cesar seated inside the sala where a bloodied bolo lay on top of the
table beside Cesar.

Solomon then asked Cesar where the victim was and he motioned towards the back of the house. When they
saw the bloodied Virgilio sprawled on the ground near the artesian well, they shifted him to a more
comfortable position. Catalino was about to leave to look for a car that would bring Virgilio to the hospital
when the policemen arrived and went inside the house. Cesar surrendered his bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca
and, without uttering a word, allowed himself to be hauled into the police car together with the body of
Virgilio. Solomon and the son of Virgilio went with them. On the way to the police station, Solomon asked
Cesar why he hacked his brother, to which the latter answered "That's good for him," Solomon tried to explain
to Cesar that he can be jailed for what he did but Cesar simply replied "Even if I will be jailed." Then Cesar
turned to the son of Virgilio and said "Now you see what happened to your father." When they reached the
police station, Virgilio was already dead. Cesar was immediately detained.

Issue: WON the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death?

Ruling: NO. In the present case, while the trial court correctly considered the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, it failed to make a finding as to the presence of any aggravating circumstance which would justify
the imposition of the death penalty. There is here present the aggravating circumstance of relationship but
this is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Perforce, pursuant to Article 63, the
correct penalty to be imposed should only be reclusion perpetua.

INTOXICATION
45. PEOPLE VS. RENEJANE (INTOXICATION)
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the RTC of Cebu finding Beniano Renejane guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of double murder sentencing him to reclusion perpetua in both cases.
Facts:
 Reynoso and Regino Mara-asin, Pablo Sumandig, Patrolman Mario de Jesus and his wife, Violeta, and
Michael Madrigal were in the house of Artemio Ripdos in Brgy. Lamesa, balamban, Cebu.
 At around 5pm, BENIANO RENEJANE, NICK LABORTE, PAULINO LABORTE and PURISIMA arrived and
invited the Mara-asins, Sumandig, de Jesus and Madrigal to the accused home to partake some food.
 From Renejanos house, they then proceeded to Nick Labortes house and then to his moms house and
finally to Paulinos home.
 Reynoso, however, did not join them at Paulinos house but went instead to his parents house to
inform them of his whereabouts. Upon reaching Paulino Labortes house (at around 11 pm), an
altercation between de Jesus and Renejane broke out regarding the appellants apprehension by de
Jesus for illegal possession of marijuana last Oct. 21, 1981. (Regino was suspected as the informer)
 While the patrolman was arguing with the accused, Paulino Laborte pulled out a knife and stabbed
him. The accused stabbed the victim the 2nd time. Regino was killed too. The lower court appreciated
abuse of strength, outraging the victims corpses, disregard of rank and drunkenness against the
accused. Reclusion perpetua was imposed.
Issue: WON the imposition of penalty was correct?
Ruling: NO. Decision modified with regard to penalties. The fact that the accused drank liquor prior to the
commission of the crime did not necessarily qualify such action as an aggravating circumstance. Intoxication
is aggravating if it is habitual or intentional. There is no finding of either by the lower court. The affair was an
ordinary drinking party. Neither can this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the absence of proof
that the intake of alcoholic drinks was of such quantity as to blur the appellant's reason and deprive him of a
certain degree of control. (See People v. Boduso, 60 SCRA 60). This finding is strengthened by the fact that
treachery has been established. Therefore, the means of execution employed were deliberately or consciously
adopted.