Criminal velasco cases copy

Dean’s
Circle

2016
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
Digested by: DC 2016 Members
Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier
CRIMINAL
LAW
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]

Criminal Law (Cases Penned by J. Velasco Dean’s
Circle

2016
Page 1 of 116
Table of Contents
BOOK 1 REVISED PENAL CODE AND RELATED SPECIAL LAWS ....................................................................................................3
Felonies ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime .........................................................................................................................5
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes........................................................................................................................8
Circumstances affecting criminal liability................................................................................................................................10
Justifying Circumstances.....................................................................................................................................................10
Exempting Circumstances..............................................................................................................................................17
Mitigating Circumstances...............................................................................................................................................18
Aggravating Circumstances............................................................................................................................................19
Defenses ................................................................................................................................................................................26
Alibi ...................................................................................................................................................................................26
Persons Criminally Liable........................................................................................................................................................29
Degree of Participation.......................................................................................................................................................29
Penalties ................................................................................................................................................................................31
Prescription of Crimes (RPC and Special Penal Laws) ..............................................................................................................32
BOOK 2 REVISED PENAL CODE AND SPECIAL LAWS.................................................................................................................34
Crimes Against Public Order................................................................................................................................................34
RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) ........................................35
Art. 171, RPC......................................................................................................................................................................61
Art. 177, RPC......................................................................................................................................................................62
RA 7877 Anti-Sexual Harrasment Act...................................................................................................................................63
Crimes Committed by Public Officers ..................................................................................................................................64
Arts. 203-245, RPC..............................................................................................................................................................64
RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act......................................................................................................................66
Misconduct ........................................................................................................................................................................68
Crimes Against Persons.......................................................................................................................................................70
Arts. 246-266, RPC..............................................................................................................................................................70
RA 7610 Anti-Child Abuse Law ..........................................................................................................................................107
Crimes Against Property ...................................................................................................................................................108
Crimes Against Honor.......................................................................................................................................................111
Tariffs and Customs Code .................................................................................................................................................113

Circle

2016
Page 2 of 116
FELONIES
A. Classifications (Intentional and Culpable Felonies)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO
G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009, Velasco, J.
The offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the
victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.
Facts:
Adrian Quinto, together with Oliver Quinto (deceased), was delivering a letter. On their way
home, they had an encounter with Badriago. The latter hacked Adrian with a Sundang. Adrian
managed to push Oliver out of the pedicab to call for help and was able to run before he lost
consciousness. When he woke in the hospital, he found out that Oliver was dead. Badriago claimed
that
he
tried
to
get
away
with
the
Quinto’s
but
the
latter
chased
him
and
insisted
a
fight.
He
claimed

that Adrian bumped his pedicab that caused the respondent to swerve to the middle of the road.
Seeing Adrian was about to stab him, he grabbed a bolo from his pedicabs passenger seat and used
it
to
strike
at
Adrian,
injuring
his
left
hand.
Adrian’s
knife
fell
and
when
he
bent
to
pick
it
up,

Badriago again hacked at him with his bolo.
On a complaint filed by Adrian, RTC convicted Badriago for (1) the crime of frustrated
murder instead of frustrated homicide for hacking Adrian and (2) murder for the death of Oliver.
CA however modified the same and held him guilty of frustrated homicide and murder. Badriago
challenged the conviction on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether or not Badriago is guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide for hacking Adrian
Ruling:
Yes. To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that
person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all
the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the
victim without medical intervention or attendance.
On the other hand, the essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: (1) The
offender performs all the acts of execution; (2) all the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence; (3) but the felony is not produced; and (4) by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
BOOK 1 REVISED PENAL CODE and related SPECIAL LAWS

Circle

2016
Page 3 of 116
From the evidence presented to the trial court, it is very much clear that accused-appellant
was
able
to
perform
all
the
acts
that
would
necessarily
result
in
Adrian’s
death.
His
intention
to
kill

can be presumed from the lethal hacking blows Adrian received. His attack on Adrian with a bolo
was not justified. His claim of self-defense was not given credence by both the trial and appellate
courts. Neither are there any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, and infanticide.
The circumstances, thus, make out a case for frustrated homicide as accused-appellant performed
all the acts necessary to kill Adrian; Adrian only survived due to timely medical intervention as
testified to by his examining physician.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL LINDO y VERGARA
G.R. No. 189818 August 9, 2010 Velasco Jr. J.
The mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of
the
victim’s
genitalia

consummates the crime; the mere touching of the labia by the penis was held to be sufficient.
Facts:
AAA, the private complainant, was 11 years old while Lindo was her neighbor. While AAA
was sleeping in the pabasa she attended, Lindo took her away to a place near a creek. He tried
inserting his penis into her vagina, whereupon his penis made contact with her sex organ but there
was no complete penetration. Not achieving full penile penetration, he then made her bend over,
and inserted his penis into her anus, causing her to cry out in pain. RTC found him guilty of
statutory rape under Art. 335 of the RPC in relation to R.A No. 7610. The CA affirmed the judgment
and awarded exemplary damages.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in convicting the accused.
Ruling:
No. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Lindo had carnal
knowledge of AAA. The insertion of his penis into the vagina of AAA, though incomplete, was
sufficient. As held in People v. Tablang, the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia
majora of the victims genitalia consummates the crime; the mere touching of the labia by the penis
was held to be sufficient. The elements of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code are present. Under the said article, it provides that rape is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman when the offended party is under twelve years of age. AAA was 11
years old at the time accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. As such, that constitutes
statutory rape. The two elements of the crime are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age. Thus, the CA correctly upheld the
conviction of accused-appellant by the RTC.
Both the RTC and the CA, however, erred in finding only one count of rape in the present
case. From the information filed, it is clear that accused-appellant was charged with two offenses,
rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d) of the RPC, and rape as an act of sexual assault under Art. 266-A,

Circle

2016
Page 4 of 116
par. 2. Accused-appellant was charged with having carnal knowledge of AAA, who was under
twelve years of age at the time, under par. 1(d) of Art. 266-A, and he was also charged with
committing
an
act
of
sexual
assault
by
inserting
his
penis
into
another
person’s
mouth
or
anal

orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person under the
second paragraph of Art. 266-A. Two instances of rape were indeed proved at the trial, as it was
established that there was contact between accused-appellants penis and AAAs labia; then AAAs
testimony established that accused-appellant was able to partially insert his penis into her anal
orifice.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime
JOEL YONGCO and JULIETO LAÑOJAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014, Velasco, J.
It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy—conspirators may act separately or
together in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect
of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by
looking at it as a whole—acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.
Facts:
Petitioners
Yongco
and
Lañojan,
as
security
guards
in
the
premises
of
the
City
Engineer’s

Office (CEO), and Tangian as garbage truck driver of the City Government of Iligan were charged for
allegedly stealing one unit transmission of Tamaraw and l-beam of Nissan with a total value of P40,
000.00. RTC held petitioners liable for qualified theft via conspiracy.
Aggrieved, petitioners, in their appeal, prayed that the CA reverse the RTC decision.
Tangian claimed that he should not be considered as a conspirator since he merely innocently
obeyed
Lañojan’s
instructions
on
the
assumption
that
the
latter
was
his
superior
and
that he had no
criminal intent whatsoever. Yongco, in his defense, argued that Tangian and his two other helpers
asked
for
his
assistance
which
he
extended
in
good
faith,
in
view
of
Lañojan’s
statement
earlier
that

day that the office garage has to be cleared. Lañojan, on the other hand, insisted that he cannot be
considered as a conspirator since he was not present at the time of taking, and that the mere giving
of a thumbs-up sign to Tangian when the latter delivered the materials to the junk shop does not
amount
to
conspiracy.
CA
affirmed
RTC’s
decision.
Hence,
this
Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Lañojan is liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy despite his absence
during the commission of the crime.
Ruling:
Yes. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a
felony and decide to commit it. Well-settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous
agreement is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the

Circle

2016
Page 5 of 116
offense was perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the
commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of
criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances.
The RTC correctly ruled that Lañojan have instigated and marshalled the entire scheme. In
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are
answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.The guilt of one
is the guilt of all. Applying this doctrine in the case at bench, it can reasonably be concluded that
despite
Lañojan’s
lack
of
physical
participation
in
hauling
the
items
to
Tangian’s truck and bringing
them to the junk shop, he can still be liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS, SR., BENEDICTO
DOCTOR, AND NESTOR GATCHALIAN
G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the
commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.
Facts:
One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother named Damiana and two care-
takers Liezl and Angelita, were
walking
home
from
Damiana’s
medical
check-up
when
Estrella’s

cousins Tony Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with Nestor Gatchalian, suddenly came out
from the side of the road. Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while
Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of
Damiana and Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more
gunshots at the former when she was already down on the ground. After which, the three accused
fled from the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of
the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy which the CA
affirmed with modification. Hence, this petition was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not the finding of conspiracy in the commission of the crime of murder gives the
same criminal liability to three accused.
Ruling:
No. The court cannot agree to the finding of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court
that Gatchalian is equally guilty on account of conspiracy to merit the same criminal liability as
accused-appellants Tomas, Sr. and Doctor.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial

Circle

2016
Page 6 of 116
evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. To be equally guilty for
murder, it must be shown that Doctor and Gatchalian conspired with Tomas, Sr., for in a conspiracy,
every act of one of the conspirators in furtherance of a common design or purpose of such a
conspiracy is the act of all. From the clear testimony of Angelita and Liezl, it has been duly
established that Doctor’s contemporaneous act was made in furtherance of the common purpose of
killing Estrella and ensuring impunity from the act. Indeed, Doctors cooperation in the shooting of
Estrella ensured its accomplishment and their successful escape from the crime scene. Doctor is,
thus, equally guilty and liable with Tomas for the murder of Estrella on account of conspiracy.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO BUCAYO, HECTOR BUCAYO AND JAYSON ORTIZ
G.R. No. 178770, June 13, 2008, Velasco, Jr., J.
There is conspiracy when the separate acts committed, taken collectively, emanate from a
concerted and associated action, albeit each circumstance, if considered separately, may not show
confabulation.
Facts:
In Tondo, Manila, Perez and Buencillo were on their way home when they passed by the
group of Fernando Bucayo, Hector Bucayo and Jayson Ortiz (whom Perez recognized). The group
surrounded and blocked their way, taunting and shouting incentives at them until a rumble ensued.
Perez, who attempted to flee, was dragged back to the melee by Hector. Perez saw Hector and Ortiz
gang up on Buencillo as Fernando struck him repeatedly with a steel chair. As Perez was trying to
escape, he got hold of a barbecue stick and stabbed Hector with it. When his attempt to make the
group stop assaulting Buencillo proved futile, he asked for assistance from the police and went to
Buencillo’s
house. After the melee, Buencillo was pronounced dead by Jose Reyes Memorial Medical
Hospital.
Fernando, Hector and Ortiz were charged with the murder of Buencillo but Ortiz and
another member of the group remained at large. The RTC found the accused persons guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by superior strength. The CA affirmed with
modification, asserting conspiracy as a qualifying circumstance.
Issue:
Whether or not conspiracy has transpired.
Ruling:
Yes. Altogether, the incidents prior to the melee, the simultaneous active participation of the
accused and use of their superior strength and number, and the flight of the Ortiz brothers
undoubtedly establish a conspiracy to assault and harm Jonathan and Edison, leading to Edison’s

death. In this case, to reiterate, the CA observed that (1) Fernando and his group blocked Jonathan
and Edison as the two were on their way home; (2) they all participated in the attack on Jonathan
and Edison; (3) when Jonathan had a chance to flee, Hector dragged him back; and (4) Hector and
Jayson exchanged blows with Jonathan and Edison as Fernando viciously hit Edison with a steel

Circle

2016
Page 7 of 116
chair causing the demise of Edison. All these constitute circumstances that lead to the conclusion
that all the accused conspired to harm their prey. These, taken with the eyewitness testimonies and
the physical evidence supported by the medico-legal’s
findings,
establish
without
doubt
the
guilt
of

the accused-appellants.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABDUL AMINOLA y OMAR
and MIKE MAITIMBANG y ABUBAKAR,
G.R. No. 178062, September 8, 2010, Velasco, Jr., J.
Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the
former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time.
Facts:
Aminola and Maitimbang were accused of the crime of robbery with homicide for robbing
one Nestor Gabuya of his personal properties and for killing the latter by reason or on occasion
thereof with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The eyewitness Jesus Oliva identified the two accused
to have perpetrated the same. The RTC convicted Maitimbang of the crime charged and sentenced
them to death. The
CA
affirmed
the
trial
court’s
decision
but
reduced
the
penalty
imposed

to reclusion perpetua in view of the abolition of the death penalty. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the two accused are guilty of the crime of homicide with robbery.
RULING
Yes. The following elements must be established for a conviction in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide: (1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) The property taken belongs to another; (3) The taking is animo
lucrandi; and (4) By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
The prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellants committed robbery with
homicide through the totality of their evidence. The first three elements were established when an
eyewitness testified that he saw, and positively identified, accused-appellants
taking
Gabuya’s

property by force and both shooting Gabuya. Gabuya’s
death
resulting
from
their
attack
proves
the

last element of the complex crime as duly confirmed by the post-mortem report.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA and JERRY B. ORIAS
G.R. No. 186539, 29 June 2010, Velasco, Jr., J.

Circle

2016
Page 8 of 116
In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only
one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender x x x when various victims
expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
Facts:
One evening, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, both members of the CAFGU, entered
the house of Segundina Cruz and requested that supper be prepared for them as they were roving.
While Segundina and Rosemarie were preparing in the kitchen, Elarcosa and Orias fired their guns
at Jose and Jorge Cruz. Segundina ran towards his son while Rosemarie hid in the shrubs.
Rosemarie heard her mother crying loudly and after a series of gunshots, silence ensued. The
following morning, Rosemarie returned to their house where she found the dead bodies of her
parents and her brother. The amount of P40,000 and a certificate of registration of large cattle
were also gone. Elarcosa and Orias were thereafter charged with robbery with multiple homicide.
RTC convicted the accused of the offense as charged. The CA, however, changed the conviction to
multiple murder, ratiocinating that robbery was not proved and that the killing was qualified by
treachery.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of multiple murder.
Ruling:
Yes. Accused-appellant Orias should be convicted of three (3) counts of murder and not of
the complex crime of murder.
In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute
only one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is
only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. It is clear from the evidence on
record that the three (3) crimes of murder did not result from a single act but from several
individual and distinct acts. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from
separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
Simon Fernan Jr. and Expedito Torrevilas v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, Velasco, Jr., J.
Reasonable doubt is present when after the entire comparison and consideration of all the
evidences, leaves the minds of the judges in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding
conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a certainty that convinces and directs the
understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously
upon it
Facts:
Simon Fernan Jr. and Expendito Torrevilas were engineers of CEBU Highway project. Later
on it was discovered that there were falsified Letters of Advice Allotment and vouchers for the
project which are needed for the release of the fund. The funds were illegally released based on

Circle

2016
Page 9 of 116
alleged ghost deliveries in conjunction with false or fake tally sheets and other documents which
they admittedly signed for the said construction. Thus the amount released was P3, 839 ,810.74.
They were charged together with the several persons for complex crime of Estafa thru falsification
of Public Documents and convicted by the Sandiganbayan as conspirators. However, they
contended that the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused our guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
Estafa thru falsification of public documents.
Ruling:
Yes, their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. A thorough scrutiny of the records is
imperative to determine whether or not reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of accused Fernan,
Jr. and Torrevillas. The prosecution presented evidences that the accused Fernan, Jt. And
Torrevillas has knowledge of the fake tally sheets and the Letters of Allotment which led to the
release of government funds and based on the testimony of state witness which is the accountant
for the project. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Justifying Circumstances
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARBALATE
To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the victim be simultaneous
with the attack on the accused, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval
of time.
Facts:
Ruperto Arbalate and his sons Roel and Ramil Arbalate were charged with murder for
killing Selemen. Roel and Ramil were able to evade arrest and remain at large. Hence, only Ruperto
faced trial. During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not guilty. In his defense, Ruperto invoked
self-defense. Moreover, he argued that there was no abuse of superior strength. The presence of
two or more aggressors does not necessarily create such aggravating circumstance; there must be
proof of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressors. In this case, the attack
of the three accused was not clearly shown. Without clear proof of this qualifying circumstance, he
must be convicted of homicide only.
Issue:
Whether or not Ruperto correctly invoked self-defense.
Ruling:

Circle

2016
Page 10 of 116
No. In the case at bar, there was no unlawful aggression shown by the victim. The victim’s
action hardly constitutes unlawful aggression since it was a reaction to Rupertos assault with a
piece of wood. After that push, the victim ceased to attack him. Where the
inceptual unlawful aggression of the victim had already ceased, the accused had no more right to
kill the victim. In addition, the court found Rupertos theory of self-defense to be incredulous in light
of the physical evidence, i.e., the nature, character, location, and extent of the wounds inflicted on
the victim. The death certificate, the due execution of which was admitted by the defense; and the
photographs of the victim show that he sustained multiple hacking and stab wounds. The cause of
his death was severe hemorrhage secondary to irreversible shock. The wounds as well as the act of
beheading the victim clearly belie self-defense.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVID MANINGDING
Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing
the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger––
not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and
immediate
threat
to
one’s
life.
Facts:
At around 10:25 in the evening in Pangasinan, while Aladino
(prosecution’s
1st witness) was
tending to his sari-sari store, he noticed brothers Rommel and Marlon conversing with each other
while seated on a bench beside his store. While this was transpiring, the accused arrived. The
victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who happened to be his brother-in-law, "good
evening."He stated that the accused kept quiet and suddenly raised the right hand of Marlon and
stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was carrying. Marlon shouted because of the pain,
which caused the people in the neighborhood to come out. At this instance, the accused ran away.
Dr. De Guzman and Rommel were presented by the prosecution as its corroborating witnesses.
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder charged against him.
The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found that treachery attended the stabbing of the victim,
being sudden and unexpected. The RTC also explained that the facts indicate no showing that there
was any altercation between the accused and the victim immediately prior to the stabbing that
could have warned the latter of the said ensuing incident. The accused appealed the Decision of the
RTC, reiterating his argument of self-defense
but
the
CA
affirmed
the
lower
court’s
decision.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant’s
stabbing
of
the
victim
is
justified
by
self-defense.
Ruling:
No. Preliminarily, it is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance
of self-defense, an accused admits the commission of the act of killing. The burden of evidence,

Circle

2016
Page 11 of 116
therefore,
shifts
to
the
accused’s
side
in
clearly
and
convincingly
proving
that
the
elements
of
self-
defense
exist
that
could
justify
the
accused’s
act.
In
this
case,
considering
that
at
the
outset,

accused-appellant has already maintained a claim of self-defense, the burden of evidence rests upon
him in proving his act of stabbing as justifiable under the circumstances.
According to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, "any person who acts in defense of his
person or rights" do not incur any criminal liability provided that the following requisites concur:
(1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Conversely, the
accused
must
be
able
to
establish
that
all
three
circumstances
concur
in
order
for
the
accused’s
act

to be justified under the law.
Particularly, in the case of unlawful aggression, People v. Gabrino, following the ruling in
People v. Manulit,
explained
that
“Unlawful
aggression
is
defined
as
an
actual
physical
assault,
or
at

least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive
and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent danger––not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only
when
the
one
attacked
faces
real
and
immediate
threat
to
one’s
life.”

In this case, the records would show that accused-appellant was clearly not able to establish
the aforementioned requisites. Worse, his sole evidence––his own testimony––was found by the
RTC to be so weak and devoid of any credibility as against those presented by the prosecution.
From the facts of the present case, the RTC gave credence and weight to the evidence presented by
the prosecution, whose testimonies rule out accused-appellant’s
claim
of
self-defense.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA
G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
This Court said in People v. Catbagan, "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or
incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to
self-defense."
Facts:
An information was filed against respondent Rogelio Dolorido (Dolorido) charging him of
murder for the death of one Daniel Estose (Estose). During trial, the witnesses for the prosecution,
Aniolito Avila and Adrian Avila (the Avilas), testified that on the day of the murder while the Avilas
were walking towards the coconut plantation they saw Dolorido standing near the coconut drier of
Estose,
appearing
very
angry.
Thereafter,
Dolorido
proceeded
to
Rustica
Dolorido’s
coconut
drier

located a hundred meters away and hid behind a coconut tree. Moments later, when Estose passed
by
Rustica
Dolorido’s
coconut
drier,
they
saw
Dolorido
suddenly
hack
Estose
twice.
When
Estose

tried to retreat, he fell down and it was then that Dolorido stabbed him, which caused his death. For
his part, Dolorido raised the defense of self-defense. Dolorido was found guilty of murder qualified
by treachery.
Issue:

Circle

2016
Page 12 of 116
Whether or not self-defense should be appreciated as interposed by Dolorido.
Ruling:
No. In order for self-defense to be successfully invoked, the following essential elements
must be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person resorting to self-defense.
In this case, we agree with the trial court that the accused-appellant failed to prove the
existence of unlawful aggression. But he maintains that Estose provoked him when the latter
started to unsheathe his bolo from his scabbard. Nevertheless, as aptly found by the trial court, his
testimony is too incredible to be believed, viz:
Dolorido’s
plea
failed
to
impress
the
Court.
To
be
sure,
his
story
on
how
the
deceased

was killed is too incredible to inspire belief. According to him, it was the deceased who first
unsheathed his bolo but did not succeed in his attempt to fully unsheathe it because he
(Accused)
hacked
him.
Thereafter,
the
deceased
tried
to
wrest
Accused’s
bolo
but
was
injured
instead. If the deceased failed to unsheathe his bolo because Accused was able to hack him,
how
could
the
deceased
then
have
attempted
to
dispossess
the
Accused
of
the
latter’s
bolo?

The truth, of course, is that the Accused waylaid the deceased, as testified to by the
prosecution witnesses.
SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 191913 March 21, 2012, Velasco, Jr., J.
Unlawful aggression does not contemplate a mere threatening or intimidating attitude.
Facts:
Shortly before 10pm, officer-of-the-day Lolito gave a lawful order to SPO1 Eduardo Basilio
and the victim SPO1 Doddie Espejo to stop boarding a tricycle. Lolito told Doddie that he should
stay because he was already drunk and that he is still on duty. Doddie, known for his combative
behaviour, alighted from the tricycle and held his .45 caliber gun. Lolito fired his M-16 armalite
upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, Doddie drew his gun and pointed it at Lolito. The accused
then shot Doddie on the head, killing the victim instantly. Lolito then surrendered to the station
Chief of Police.
Lolito was charged with homicide, but Lolito claimed self-defense. Reverse trial ensued, and
both the RTC and CA found Lolito guilty of homicide for lack of unlawful aggression
on
Doddie’s

part.
Issue:
Whether or not Lolito should be acquitted on the ground that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of Doddie.

Circle

2016
Page 13 of 116
Ruling:
Yes. For self-defense to be credited as a justifying circumstance, the following elements
must be present: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it;
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation by the accused.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger on the life and limb of a person at the time the defensive action was taken against the
aggressor, Unlawful aggression does not contemplate a mere threatening or intimidating attitude.
Hence, the act of Doddie pointing a gun at the accused establishes the presence of unlawful
aggression.
Even assuming that the prosecution is correct in saying that Doddie only drew his gun
without pointing it to Lolito, the accused still had every reason to suspect that his life was in actual
danger. To be sure, jurisprudence holds that the act of drawing a gun per se is ordinarily insufficient
to establish unlawful aggression. But in this case, the following circumstances confirm the actual
and
imminent
threat
to
Lolito’s
life
when
Doddie
drew
his
gun:
(1)
The
victim
was
drunk;
(2)
The

victim was a police officer trained to shoot; (3) The victim was known for his combative behavior;
(4)
The
victim
ignored
the
accused’s
lawful
order;
and
(5)
The
victim
ignored
the
warning
shot
by

the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS D. MANULIT
G.R. No. 192581, November 17, 2010, Velasco, Jr. J.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent
injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate
threat
to
ones’
life.
Facts:
Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon, were walking along Dagupan Extension, Tondo,
Manila on their way home when they passed by accused-appellant Manulit, who was sitting in front
of his house across the barangay hall. Upon seeing them, Manulit stood up and successively shot
Reynaldo at the back, resulting in the latter’s death. He then tucked the gun in his waist, raised his
hands, and shouted, O, wala akong ginawang kasalanan at wala kayong nakita. And he ran towards
the direction of the basketball court adjoining the barangay hall. This was corroborated by the
testimonies of two eye witnesses
In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. He testified he asked his cousin,
Marvin Manulit, to have a drink with him. While they were drinking, Reynaldo barged in holding a
gun with both his hands. He appeared not to be his normal self with reddish eyes, as if high on
drugs. His cousin, Marvin Manulit, corroborated his testimony. Thereby he was charged with
murder. RTC convicted him with murder aggravated by treachery which was later on affirmed by
the CA which added that the he has failed to prove the presence of unlawful aggression, which is
one of the key elements of self-defense.

Circle

2016
Page 14 of 116
Issue:
Whether or not the unlawful aggression was present which would absolve Manulit of the
crime of murder.
Ruling:
No. Unlawful aggression was not present. The essential elements of self-defense are: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. The person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving
all the elements. More importantly, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an
unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to
inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.
Although all of the three elements must concur, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order
for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words, there
can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.
In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression.
After a careful perusal of the records of this case, this Court finds no plausible reason to question
the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO SATONERO @ RUBEN
G.R. No. 186233; October 2, 2009; Velasco, Jr., J.
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal
safety. There must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude.
Facts:
Leticia and her nephew, Ramon Amigable were in Brgy. La Esperanza, Tulunan waiting for a
tricycle ride to a place called Mlang. Leticia had just received a gift from her sister. Accused-
appellant, Leticias nephew too, happened to be nearby. Accused-appellant, upon seeing the gift
Leticia was holding, inquired where it came from. When told of the source, accused-appellant
mocked the gift-giver for giving more to those who have more in life. Accused-appellant then asked
Leticia if she knew who he was, followed by a remark that he would throw her into the irrigation
ditch. When Ramon was about to board the tricycle, accused-appellant followed him, shot him three
times with a short-barreled gun, then stabbed him several times. All told, Ramon sustained nine
stab wounds on different parts of his body.
Accused-appellant urges his acquittal on the ground he acted in self-defense. He asserts that
the unlawful aggressor in the fatal episode in question was Ramon, who started it by
calling accused-appellant a fool and then chasing him around with a knife. Pressing the
point, accused-appellant alleges that the assault came without sufficient provocation on his part,
having just arrived from a farm work when Ramon attacked him. Ramon, so accused-appellant

Circle

2016
Page 15 of 116
claims, resented the fact that he, accused-appellant, was presently working on a piece of land which
the former used to till and longed to possess.
Issue:
Whether or not self-defense should be appreciated in the case at bar.
Ruling:
No. There was no self-defense on the part of accused-appellant in the instant case. The
element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, or at least not convincingly
proved,accused-appellants claim of self-defense cannot be appreciated. For unlawful aggression to
be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. There must be an actual, sudden,
and unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude. But assuming arguendo that
there
was
unlawful
aggression
on
Ramon’s
part,
the
Court

distinctly noted that the means accused-appellant employed to prevent or repel the supposed
unlawful aggression were far from reasonably necessary. The number and nature of the wounds
sustained by Ramon certainly belie a claim of self-defense. It is worth stressing that accused-
appellant
inflicted
nine
stab
wounds
on
Ramon
after
he
pumped
a
bullet
on
the
latter’s
lower
left

chest. Said gunshot wound, as medical report later showed, was by itself already fatal. Significantly,
after Ramon fell as a result of his bullet wound, accused-appellant still proceeded to stab him. As
aptly observed by the trial court, Ramon could not have walked far after he was hit by the
bullet. Accused-appellants pretense, therefore, that he had no intention to harm Ramon after the
shooting and that he only approached the fallen Ramon to bring him to the doctor, stretches
credulity to the absurd and must be rejected. Certainly, the nature and number of the injuries
inflicted by accused-appellant on the victim should be significant indicia in determining the
plausibility of the self-defense plea.
ALBERTO GARONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 148971, November 29, 2006, Velasco, Jr., J.
Where two criminal cases arose from one incident, and the accused cries self-defense, it is
incumbent upon the accused to prove all of its elements. Self-defense is a factual allegation which
should be proved during trial. Since the findings of the trial court are regarded with finality, we cannot
review such factual issue on appeal.
Facts:
Morta tried to stab Guevarra and Garong. The two were able to avoid the stab blows. A
single shot was then fired at Morta. When the police investigated the incident, Morta reported that
Garong shot him.
Two criminal cases were filed from this single incident. Morta was charged with multiple
attempted homicide while Garong was charged with frustrated murder. Garong contends that he
acted in self-defense against the real aggressor, Morta. He theorizes that the plea of self-defense, if
considered, would introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would entitle him to acquittal.

Circle

2016
Page 16 of 116
Issue:
Whether or not Garong acted in self-defense.
Ruling:
No. For self-defense to prosper, there must be: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself. The burden of proving the elements of self-defense shifts to
the accused.
In this case, the prosecution presented the following compelling evidence, among others: 1)
positive identification by the complainant; 2) physical evidence of blood drops found by the police
officer; 3) the admission of petitioner that he had a gun at the time of the incident; and 4) the point
of entry of the gunshot in the complainants left buttock. The foregoing circumstantial and pieces of
physical evidence disprove the claim of self-defense. While petitioner harps on the alleged
complainant’s unlawful aggression, the trial court found that there was no proof beyond reasonable
doubt against the complainant. Hence, Gerson Morta was acquitted in Criminal Case No. C-
3402. Assuming arguendo that Gerson Morta was the aggressor, petitioner must prove the
existence of the two (2) other elements of self-defense: the aforecited second (2nd) and third (3rd)
elements. A mere allegation of self-defense will not exempt Garong from criminal
liability. Petitioner should squarely meet the circumstantial and physical evidence presented by the
prosecution. Unfortunately, there was no sufficient or satisfactory explanation for the
aforementioned evidence against the petitioner.
Exempting Circumstances
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAUL ALIPIO
G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009, Velasco, Jr., J.
The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and
intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. It is improper to assume the contrary.
Facts:
AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. Marilou Gipit Alipio often hired AAA to
watch over her children. Marilou sent AAA to Sitio Liman, Sorsogon to borrow money from
Marilou’s
father,
Saul
but
Saul
told
AAA
that
he
would
give
the
necessary
amount
to
Marilou

directly. While about to head for home, AAA heard Paul calling her from his house. Suddenly, Paul
held her hand, pushed her inside and, while covering AAAs mouth, brought her to his bedroom. He
then removed her shorts and panty and likewise, undressed himself. Paul then went on top of her,
kissed her, and fondled her breasts. Eventually, he entered her, first using his finger, then his penis.
Before finally letting the crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should she
disclose to anybody what had just happened between them. Psychiatric evaluation revealed that
AAA, although 42 years old at that time, had the mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10
year-old child. Accused-appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving full credence to and
reliance on AAAs inculpatory statements in the witness box, it being his contention that her account

Circle

2016
Page 17 of 116
of what purportedly happened reeks of inconsistencies and does not jibe with the normal flow of
things. As asserted, it is quite unnatural for a woman finding herself in a sexually-charged situation
not make an outcry or use her hands to ward off the advances of a sex fiend.
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes insanity. He contends
that the psychiatrist who examined him consistently testified that there was a high possibility that
he was suffering from schizoaffective disorder when the alleged rape incident happened.
Issue:
Whether or not the exempting circumstance of insanity can be properly invoked by Alipio.
Ruling:
No. Exempting Circumstance of Insanity Is Absent. The moral and legal presumption is
always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition
of a person. It is improper to assume the contrary. This presumption, however, may be overcome by
evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person from criminal liability.
The evidence offered by the defense in this case miserably failed to establish clearly and
convincingly the presence of the stringent criterion for insanity. On the contrary, the evidence
tended to show, albeit impliedly, that accused-appellant was not deprived of reason at all and can
still distinguish right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust, he threatened AAA not to tell
anybody about what he had done; otherwise, she would be killed. This single episode irresistibly
implies, for one, that accused-appellant knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to
keep it a secret. And for another, it indicated that the crime was committed during one of accused-
appellants lucid intervals. In this regard, no less than his father admitted in open court that there
were times when his son was in his proper senses.
Mitigating Circumstances
Nemrod Gotis v. People of the Philippines
In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for the purpose of mitigating a crime,
one must look into the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person provoked,
and the place and time when the provocation is made. In the present case, a finding that the act of the
victim did not constitute unlawful aggression does not automatically negate the attendant
circumstance of sufficient provocation.
Facts:
Nahom and Nemrod Gotis were brothers. They went to the house of Serafin to kill him but
he was not found thereby threatening to Nilda the wife of Serfin that he would kill the latter. Nilda
told Serafin about what happened and he went to Nahoms house. Upon reaching the gate of
Nahoms house, Serafin called for Nahom and asked him to come out. When Nahom heard the shouts
of Serafin, he immediately called Nemrod for help. Nemrod came over and advised Serafin to go
home, but he refused to leave. Instead, Serafin attempted to hack Nemrod and tried to enter the

Circle

2016
Page 18 of 116
gate of Nahoms house. Thereafter, Nahom struck Serafin on the head with a bolo. Meanwhile,
Nemrod his brothers house to look for a bolo. After being hit, Serafin ran away. Nemrod, however,
pursued him, and hit him several times on the back and arm. Thereafter Nemrod ran away. The two
were charged with homicide. Serafin died eventually during treatment. Nemrod voluntarily
surrender to the authorities. The trial court ruled that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide. But for Nemrod a mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation and
voluntary surrender is thereby credited. However he appealed to the CA and ruled that he has failed
to prove satisfactorily the elements of self defense and that unlawful aggression did not exist at the
time he attacked the Serafin. observed that the unlawful aggression against Nemrods life had
already ceased when petitioner went inside his brothers house and the victim ran away. Thus, his
coming out of the house with a bolo is indicative of a determination to kill Serafin Gotis and not
merely
to
defend
himself.
Thereby
he’s
not
entitled
to
mitigating
circumstance.
Issue:
Whether or not Nemrod is entitled to mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
Ruling:
Yes. As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack, or imminent danger of the attack, from the victim. On the other hand, as a
mitigating circumstance, sufficient provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
victim adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly proportionate
in gravity. Notably, while an act cannot be considered an unlawful aggression for the purpose of
self-defense, the same act can be considered as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating
the crime.
In the present case, a finding that the act of the victim did not constitute unlawful
aggression does not automatically negate the attendant circumstance of sufficient provocation. In
the present case, Nemrod was merely pacifying Serafin when the latter suddenly attempted to hack
the former. Although Nemrod evaded the attack, Serafins act was enough provocation to anger
Nemrod and cause him to strike back. Thus, SC find that sufficient provocation attended the crime.
Aggravating Circumstances
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROEL RUEL SALLY,
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on
unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victims. The kind of weapon used is immaterial.
Facts:
Two criminal informations were filed against Roel Ruel Sally for the murder of Edwin Lucas
and Jose Bersero. According to the prosecution witness Roger Lara, he saw the accused hit the
victims with a piece of pipe while sleeping. Sally denied the charges against him and alleged that he

Circle

2016
Page 19 of 116
had no knowledge of the matters testified to by Lara. The RTC found Sally guilty of murder. In his
appeal to the CA, Sally questioned the finding that treachery attended the killings, qualifying the
crime to murder, instead of homicide. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that an
iron pipe was used in the killing of the victims as the weapon was not retrieved or presented in
evidence, nor was the medico-legal officer certain if an iron pipe would cause the injuries suffered
by the victims. However, the CA upheld the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Sally should have been convicted of homicide.
Ruling:
No. Article 14, paragraph 16(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that 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. This precisely covers the
situation that accused-appellant took advantage of, when he attacked the victims while they were
sleeping. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on
unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without
the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.
The RTC was thus correct in appreciating the circumstance of treachery accompanying the
act, which qualifies the killing to murder under the first paragraph of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, not homicide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY TORRES, SR.
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods or forms in its execution which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself.
Facts:
Larry Torres, Sr. was charged with murder for shooting Michael Santonia with an
unlicensed firearm and without warning. The brother of Michael, Mitchell, testified that they were
at the house of Perez and he heard Santonia and the accused having an argument so he pulled his
brother aside and told him that they should leave. On their way out, Mitchell heard a gunshot and
he
looked
back
when
he
sensed
that
his
brother
was
falling
over.
He
saw
the
accused
at
an
arm’s

length
away
holding
a
.38
caliber
gun.
He
noticed
blood
oozing
from
his
brother’s
head.
Santonia

was brought to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Another witness, Carandang,
corroborated
such
testimony
and
added
that
he
was
two
arms’
length
away
from
Santonia
when
the

latter fell down. The accused alleged that Santonia poked a gun at him while he was about to take a
shot of alcohol. He said that Santonia had his right hand on the firearm so he tried to stop Santonia
by
placing
his
hand
on
the
former’s
right
hand.
The
gun
fired
while
they
were
struggling.
He

maintains that treachery did not attend the killing of Santonia, because there was an altercation

Circle

2016
Page 20 of 116
between him and the victim, making it impossible for the latter not to have been forewarned of any
danger to himself. Both the RTC and CA found him guilty of the crime charged and that there was
treachery.
Issue:
Whether or not treachery was correctly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
Ruling:
Yes. The charge of murder was established by the prosecution through its documentary and
testimonial evidence. All the elements of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code were duly proved. Santonia was shown to have died of internal hemorrhage caused by a
gunshot wound. The accused was positively identified. The testimonies on how the accused shot
Santonia
materially
corroborated
each
other.
Santonia’s
death
and
the
treachery
that
qualified
the

killing to murder were established. The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in its
execution which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself or
herself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. Santonia was not afforded
any means of defending himself or an opportunity to retaliate. The attack on the victim was sudden,
unexpected and without warning because he was on his way home already and had no reason to
feel that his life was in danger. He could not have protected or defended himself as his back was
turned when he was suddenly shot from behind. The strategy employed by accused-appellant and
the means he used to accomplish the act ensured that the killing of Santonia would be without risk
to himself. The conviction of the accused is affirmed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX PALING, ERNIE VILBAR @ "DODONG" (at large),
and ROY VILBAR ALEX PALING
G.R. No. 185390, March 16, 2011, Velasco, J.
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is considered
whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly
and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
Facts:
On July 1, 1996, accused Paling, accompanied by Vilbar, allegedly killed Walter Nolasco in
Roxas, Cotabato. When arraigned, they both pleaded not guilty. One of the witnesses for the
prosecution, Richard, said that he saw Paling and Ernie stabbing Walter while Vilbar held him. After
killing Walter, the accused warned Richard not to speak about what he saw otherwise, they would
also kill him. On the other hand, the defense denied all the allegations against the accused. The RTC
convicted Paling and Vilbar of the crime of murder with a qualifying circumstance of treachery and
evident premeditation which decision was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:

Circle

2016
Page 21 of 116
Whether or not Paling is guilty of the crime of murder.
Ruling:
Yes. The killing of Walter is qualified by abuse of superior strength, not by treachery or
evident premeditation. In this regard, it is worth noting that "qualifying circumstances cannot be
presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing
itself."
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is considered
whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is
plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of
to facilitate the commission of the crime. It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely
used excessive force that is "out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked." The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating
circumstance to be appreciated. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Taking
advantage of superior strength does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless.
In the present case, the victim, Walter, while being restrained by Vilbar, was simultaneously
stabbed by Paling and Ernie. Plainly, not only did the perpetrators outnumber their victim, more
importantly, they secured advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with
impunity. Under these circumstances, it is undeniable that there was gross inequality of forces
between the victim and the three accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVID MANINGDING
There is treachery when "the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from
the
defense
which
the
offended
party
might
make.”
Facts:
At
around
10:25
in
the
evening
in
Pangasinan,
while
Aladino
(prosecution’s
1st witness) was
tending to his sari-sari store, he noticed brothers Rommel and Marlon conversing with each other
while seated on a bench beside his store. While this was transpiring, the accused arrived. The
victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who happened to be his brother-in-law, "good
evening."He stated that the accused kept quiet and suddenly raised the right hand of Marlon and
stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was carrying. Marlon shouted because of the pain,
which caused the people in the neighborhood to come out. At this instance, the accused ran away.
Dr. De Guzman and Rommel were presented by the prosecution as its corroborating witnesses.
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder charged against him.
The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found that treachery attended the stabbing of the victim,
being sudden and unexpected. The RTC also explained that the facts indicate no showing that there
was any altercation between the accused and the victim immediately prior to the stabbing that

Circle

2016
Page 22 of 116
could have warned the latter of the said ensuing incident. The accused appealed the Decision of the
RTC, reiterating his argument of self-defense
but
the
CA
affirmed
the
lower
court’s
decision.
Issue:
Whether or not treachery is present in the case.
Ruling:
Yes. In People v. Dela Cruz, this Court discussed that in order for an accused to be convicted
of murder, the following elements must concur: 1) That a person was killed, 2) That the accused
killed him, 3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
248, and 4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Moreover, Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that "[a]ny person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with x x x treachery." There is treachery
when "the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the
offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make."These means or methods
are made in the form of a swift, deliberate and unexpected attack, without any warning and
affording the victim, which is usually unarmed and unsuspecting, no chance at all to resist or escape
the impending attack.
In this case, it is undisputed that it was accused-appellant who stabbed and killed the
victim, which is neither a crime of parricide nor infanticide. We are, therefore, left with the issue of
whether there was treachery in the attack. Going over the records of the case, We are convinced
that, indeed, treachery was employed and present in the stabbing by accused-appellant of the
victim,
which
led
to
the
latter’s
ultimate
death.
From
the
testimonies
of
Aladino
and
Rommel,
it

cannot be gainsaid that accused-appellant without any warning or suspicion, and taking advantage
of the circumstances, immediately attacked the victim. The victim did not have any suspicion that
could have alerted him of the impending attack. As clearly demonstrated in the trial court, the
attack was swift and unexpected, even to the eyewitnesses, Aladino and Rommel. We, therefore,
agree
with
the
RTC’s
ruling
and
finding,
and
We
find
no
reason
to
veer
away
from
them.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA
G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
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."
Facts:
An information was filed against respondent Rogelio Dolorido (Dolorido) charging him of
murder for the death of one Daniel Estose (Estose). During trial, the witnesses for the prosecution,
Aniolito Avila and Adrian Avila (the Avilas), testified that on the day of the murder while the Avilas

Circle

2016
Page 23 of 116
were walking towards the coconut plantation they saw Dolorido standing near the coconut drier of
Estose,
appearing
very
angry.
Thereafter,
Dolorido
proceeded
to
Rustica
Dolorido’s
coconut
drier

located a hundred meters away and hid behind a coconut tree. Moments later, when Estose passed
by Rustica Dolorido’s
coconut
drier,
they
saw
Dolorido
suddenly
hack
Estose
twice.
When
Estose

tried to retreat, he fell down and it was then that Dolorido stabbed him, which caused his death. For
his part, Dolorido raised the defense of self-defense. Dolorido was found guilty of murder qualified
by treachery.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the elements of treachery.
Ruling:
No. Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the
direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated,
two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or forms of attack employed by him.
In the case at bar, it was clearly shown that Estose was deprived of any means to ward off
the sudden and unexpected attack by accused-appellant. The evidence showed that accused-
appellant hid behind a coconut tree and when Estose passed by the tree, completely unaware of any
danger, accused-appellant immediately hacked him with a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry
the blows with his bare hands and as a result, he got wounded. Furthermore, when Estose tried to
retreat, stumbling in the process, accused-appellant even took advantage of this and stabbed him
resulting in his death. Evidently, the means employed by accused-appellant assured himself of no
risk at all arising from the defense which the deceased might make. What is decisive is that the
attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.
Without a doubt, treachery attended the killing.
People of the Philippines v. Prince Francisco y Zafe
Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no
opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate
Facts:
Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother Cristopher was sitting nearby on a
parked motorcycle talking to someone when Prince appeared from behind and started stabbing
Ramil using a knife. He pleaded to Prince to stop for he might die but Prince kept on stabbing him.
Then later on died. Prince was charged with murder. Prince admitted the death of Ramil which
resulted from his assault but he argued that the offense was only homicide and not murder because

Circle

2016
Page 24 of 116
there was no treachery. He argued that he did not attack Ramil from behind. RTC convicted Prince
with murder which was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prince argues that the attack was
not from behind but frontal thereby treachery was not present
Issue:
Whether or not there was treachery.
Ruling:
Yes. There was treachery. Settled jurisprudence prescribes two essential elements in order
to support the finding of treachery as an aggravating circumstance: (1) the employment of means,
methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offenders safety from any retaliatory act on
the part of the offended party, who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2)
deliberate and conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution.
In this factual setting, the selection of the knife as the weapon to kill Ramil was arrived at so
as not to create any noise that can alert the victim. Prince planned to attack Ramil when Ramils
back is turned from appellant to preclude any window for self-defense or retaliation on the part of
Ramil. The attack was swift and unexpected. He rained numerous stabbing blows on the body of
Ramil to ensure the success of his assault. Ramil was unarmed at the time of the attack depriving
him of any opportunity to defend himself. Indeed, there was a deliberate, premeditated choice of
the means, method, or manner of executing the crime that would shield appellant from any
counterattack from Ramil. Ergo, the two elements of treachery were unquestionably met.
While Prince may claim that the attack is frontal and Ramil had the opportunity to defend
himself, the Court explained in People v. Segobre that treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if
it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what
is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate. This is the unfortunate case of Ramil who was unable to repel the
attack except only to plead for his life. As the CA aptly pointed out, even if Ramil was attacked
frontally which is definitely not the case he was bereft of any opportunity to defend himself due to
the swiftness and suddenness of the attack.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHBERT AMODIA y BABA,MARIO MARINO y PATNON,
and ROY LO-OC y PENDANG,
To stress, qualifying circumstances must be proved as clearly as the crime itself. In order to
appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not only is it necessary to
evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists or opposing forces and the arms or objects
employed by both sides, but it is further necessary to analyze the incidents and episodes constituting
the total development of the event.
Facts:

Circle

2016
Page 25 of 116
Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant in Quezon City, noticed
that Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were beating Jaime. As a result of the beating died. Roda went
to Camp Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The police then filed an
investigation report which became the basis for the filing of Information against Amodia et al. RTC
ruled that Amodia et al. were guilty of Murder. The CA, moreover, held that the killing was qualified
by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength; thus, affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this
appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of murder.
Ruling:
No. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be
considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to
consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior
strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of
proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.
In this case, although the victim was unquestionably outnumbered, it was not shown that
accused-appellants deliberately applied their combined strength to weaken the defense of the
victim and guarantee the execution of the crime. Notably, accused-appellants took turns in boxing
the victim. When the victim fell, the prosecution witness was able to hold him, preventing accused-
appellants from further hurting him. Then accused-appellants simply turned away. To be sure, had
accused-appellants really intended to use their superior strength to kill the victim, they would have
finished off the victim, and probably even the lone prosecution eyewitness.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL CUASAY
We held that treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly or specially to ensure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Facts:
Cuasay with treachery, without any justifiable cause and with the deliberate intent to take
the life of Ansuli with a sharp-pointed instrument thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wound
on the chest, causing his untimely demise. Cuasay plead "not guilty" to the charge. Cuasay claimed
killing Ansuli in self-defense. RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and awarded moral
damages to the heirs of the victim. CA affirmed but modified the award.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Circle

2016
Page 26 of 116
Ruling:
No. We
agree
with
CA’s
finding
of
treachery.
We
held
that
treachery
exists
when
the

offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly or specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
In the case at bar, the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting when accused-appellant
suddenly
stabbed
him.
Treachery
was
clearly
present
in
Cuasay’s
method.
Also,
the
CA
should
not

have deleted the award of moral damages. In murder cases, the heirs of the victim should be
automatically indemnified in the amount of P50, 000 as moral damages. No proof is necessary since
the emotional and mental suffering of the heirs is apparent.
DEFENSES
Alibi
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO APATTAD
Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime.
Facts:
Accused Juanito Apattad was charged in four separate informations with the crime of rape
against his 12-year old daughter. The child, AAA, testified that in 2001, she was molested and in
June 10 and 11, 2003, she was raped by the accused. The accused threatened to kill her if she will
report the incident to her mother. However, she finally told her mother on June 13, 2003 that she
was being abused by her father. Her mother whipped her not telling it immediately. She was
interviewed by a DSWD personnel and Dr. Mila Simangan conducted a physical examination on her
and discovered that AAA had a healed hymen laceration. The accused denied the accusation of rape
and claimed that his wife was the one who initiated the criminal complaint against him because she
thinks that he has a mistress. A defense witness claimed that on the date of the incident, the accused
stayed
in
the
former’s house, which was only three kilometers away from the house of the accused.
The RTC found him guilty of three counts of rape. CA affirmed with modification as to the award of
damages.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes. The accused contends that while the defense of alibi is frowned upon, it assumes
signifance when corroborated by credible and disinterested witness, in his case, that of Calimag.

Circle

2016
Page 27 of 116
The guidelines for assessing the the defense of alibis and denials are: (1) they are generally
disfavored by the courts for being weak; (2) they cannot prevail over the positive identification of
the accused as the perpetrators of the crime; (3) for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not
only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission; (4) alibi assumes
significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested
witnesses; (5) alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment
made by the trial court, unless patently and clearly inconsistent, must be accepted.
Measured against the foregoing yardstick, accused-appellant’s
defenses
of
alibi
and
denial

cannot prosper as AAA positively identified him in her testimony as the very perpetrator of the
crime of rape committed against her. In addition, a distance of three kilometers does not make it
physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. Alibi also becomes unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused
himself, his relatives, friends and comrades-in-arms, and not by credible persons. Accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of 3 counts of rape.
PO1 LORETO NERPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 155153 July 24, 2007 Velasco, Jr., J.
It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was
at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that
the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate
vicinity, during its commission.
Facts:
SPO1
Loreto
Nerpio
held
a
children’s
birthday
party
for
his
son
at
his
residence.
Mario

Salazar joined the drinking session and later on left the house of Nerpio. Thereafter, Nelly
Villanueva, who was then waiting for a friend, saw Salazar walking along the street. Villanueva saw
a
man
poked
a
gun
at
the
right
side
of
Salazar’s
neck,
and
fired
it.
He
identified
Nerpio
as
the

malefactor. Nerpio was charged with homicide. He was found guilty as charged by the RTC. His
conviction was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether
the
CA
seriously
erred
in
disregarding
the
accused’s
defense
of
alibi
despite
the

patent
weakness
of
the
prosecution’s
evidence.
Ruling:
NO. In considering the physical distance of the accused from the crime scene, the Court has
rejected alibi where the two places are in the same municipality, where they are easily accessible by
any mode of public transportation, where the distance can be covered by walking for thirty minutes
or by riding a vehicle for twenty minutes, or even when it could be reached after approximately an
hour.

Circle

2016
Page 28 of 116
In the present case, the geographical proximity of petitioner to the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission was clearly established by the prosecution. Petitioner claims that at the time
of the alleged killing, he was at home hosting a party. However, he also testified that it was only 150
meters away from the crime scene. He even admitted that he went to the crime scene but only after
the shooting took place. Apparently, petitioner failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ y MIRANDA, alias DIDONG
G.R. No. 184792, October 12, 2009, Velasco Jr., J.
Where the possibility exists for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi
must fail.
Facts:
On November 20, 2001 in a forested area nearby the place and house of the accused Didong
and company, Didong hit with his piece of wood the nape of Ahladdin (the victim who was also
drunk at the time) then held by the hand by Nante. When Nante released his hold, Didong again hit
Ahladdin on the back of the knees. After Boyet, Nante and Didong stabbed Ahladdin, Fred Gongon
shot
him
saying
“Siguraduhin
niyo
patay
na
yan”.
The
following
morning
the
dead
body
of
Ahladdin

was discovered. Consequently, based on these established facts Didong and company were charged
of murder qualified by treachery. On this charge Didong merely provided the defense of alibi and
denial. He testified to being at Tata Freds house from five in the afternoon of November 20, 2001
until seven in the evening. Accordingly, he then headed home and stayed there the whole night. He
only found out about Ahlladins death when his neighbors informed him about it the next day.
Issue:
Whether or not the defense of alibi will prosper.
Ruling:
No. Didong’s proffered defense to evade criminal responsibility is too feeble to merit
consideration. His defense of alibi cannot overcome, and is in fact destroyed by the categorical
testimony of Anthony, who positively pointed to and identified him as one of the malefactors.
Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that (1) he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense;
and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. And when the law speaks of physical impossibility, the reference is to the distance
between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the locus criminis, as well
as the facility of access between the two places. Evidently, here, the requisites for appreciating alibi
are not present. In fact, by appellants own admission, he was with one of his co-accused the day
before Ahlladins death was uncovered. Even supposing that during the latter part of the day, he
really did go home, such a detail does not remove the possibility of his being at the forested area,
the scene of the crime.

Circle

2016
Page 29 of 116
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Degree of Participation
ALBERT G. AMBAGAN JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR NO. 204481-82, October 14, 2015, Velasco Jr., J.
The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the inducement be
made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement be
the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
Facts:
Accused Mayor Ambagan Jr. was charged and convicted by the Sandiganbayan with two
counts of homicide as principal by inducement. The prosecution presented statements from two
persons who was said to be directly present during the shooting. The first witness (Bawalan) said
that
shooting
started
after
he
heard
the
mayor
said
“GE,
IYAN
PALA
ANG
GUSTO
MO,
MGA
KASAMA

BANATAN
N’YO
NA
YAN”.
However,
the
second
witness
contradicts
this
when
he
said
that
he

instead pushed the mayor out of the road where the shooting incident occurred and that he did not
hear the mayor saying those words which could have provoked and initiate the shooting of the
victims.
Further,
evidence
provides
that
Rene
Amparo
(one
of
Mayor
Ambagan’s
men)
has
negative

paraffin test which
would
lead
to
the
fact
that
it
is
not
the
Mayor’s
men
who
initiated
the
shooting

but rather from the deceased Rey Santos. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of the crime of
double homicide. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted ruling. The
Sandiganbayan, however, would deny petitioner's motion through its assailed October 31, 2012
Resolution. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Ambagan can be held guilty for double homicide as principal by
inducement.
Ruling:
No. This Court is not inclined to believe that petitioner indeed made the declaration that
started the fray. The court a quo failed to take note of substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies
of star prosecution witnesses Patam and Ronnel Bawalan. These contradictions refer not only to
minor details but even to the facts constituting important aspects of the case, seriously eroding the
weight of the evidence of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on the culpability of
petitioner Ambagan.
This Court is not bound by the findings of the Sandiganbayan should it discover that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred with inconsistencies that are neither collateral
nor trivial, but are material and substantial in matters determinative of petitioner's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
In conclusion, the scant evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of
petitioner as principal by inducement. It was not convincingly established, beyond reasonable

Circle

2016
Page 30 of 116
doubt, that petitioner indeed ordered his men to open fire at Santos and Domingo Bawalan. The
evidence offered against him in court does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to
rebut the presumption of innocence that petitioner is entitled to under the Bill of Rights. And where
there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused, he must be acquitted even though his
innocence may be questioned, for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even
though strong, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS, SR., BENEDICTO
DOCTOR, AND NESTOR GATCHALIAN
G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
The court ruled in People v. Ballesta that mere presence at the scene of the incident,
knowledge of the plan and acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person as a
conspirator. x x x Lacking sufficient evidence of conspiracy and there being doubt as to whether
appellant acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice, the doubt should be resolved in his favor and
is thus held liable only as an accomplice.
Facts:
One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother named Damiana and two care-
takers Liezl and Angelita, were walking home
from
Damiana’s
medical
check-up
when
Estrella’s

cousins Tony Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with Nestor Gatchalian, suddenly came out
from the side of the road. Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while
Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of
Damiana and Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more
gunshots at the former when she was already down on the ground. After which, the three accused
fled from the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of
the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy which the CA
affirmed with modification. Hence, this petition was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not the finding of conspiracy made Gatchalian guilty as a conspirator.
Ruling:
No. Gatchalian is differently situated as Doctor. The evidence adduced and the records
would show that Gatchalian did not do overt acts for the furtherance of the shooting of Estrella. The
mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation
or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.
Gatchalian’s presence is merely extraneous to the accomplishment of the crime. Thus, with
his lack of overt acts manifestly contributing to the accomplishment of the common design to shoot
Estrella, there is some doubt if he indeed conspired with Tomas, Sr. and Doctor. This, however, does
not exculpate him from criminal liability absent proof that he merely tagged along or just happened
to meet his employer (Tomas, Sr.) shortly before the incident or was merely taken along without
being told about the other accused-appellants plan. The fact that Gatchalian appeared together with

Circle

2016
Page 31 of 116
the other accused-appellants and fled with them, while not constitutive of proof beyond reasonable
doubt of conspiracy, still proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in the execution
of the crime. Consequently, in line with the principle that whatever is favorable to an accused must
be accorded him, Gatchalian is guilty as an accomplice only.
PENALTIES
ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Applying article 70 of the RPC, such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
Therefore, in spite of the six (6) penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, petitioner shall only
suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. A downward modification of the penalty
imposed by the RTC is then in order.
Facts:
Celestial was convicted of six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial
document. The issue of conviction
has
attained
finality
after
the
failure
of
Celestial’s
counsel
to
file

her appellant brief. The court now only delves on the issue of the imposition of proper penalty.
Issue:
What
is
the
proper
penalty
for
Celestial’s
conviction
of
six
counts
of qualified theft with the
total amount of $50, 000.00
Ruling:
In ascertaining the proper penalty, we are guided by our pronouncement in People v.
Mercado:
First, we get the value of the property stolen as determined by the trial court
Second, we determine the imposable base penalty under Art. 309 of the RPC. Here, since
the totality of the stolen amounts for each case exceeds P22,000.00, the imposable base penalty for
each count, as per Art. 309 (1), is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed
in the maximum period, which is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years
of prision mayor, had the crime charged been simple theft.
Third, since the value of the stolen goods exceeds P22,000.00, We compute for the
additional years of maximum imprisonment under Art. 309 (1) by deducting P22,000.00 from each
case, and by subsequently dividing each difference by P10,000.00, disregarding any remainder
amount.
Fourth, we add the maximum of the base penalty to the above-determined quotient to
arrive at the maximum imprisonment term imposable had the crime committed been simple theft

Circle

2016
Page 32 of 116
Fifth, the maximum imprisonment term should not exceed the 20-year cap under Art. 309
(1), and any imprisonment term in excess of the cap should be disregarded. In this case, since all
sums exceeded 20 years, the proper penalty - the maximum period adverted to in Art. 309 (1) -
would have been 20 years of reclusion temporal, before the application of the indeterminate
sentence law, for each count, had petitioner been convicted of simple theft.
Sixth, the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that for simple theft. Under
Art. 25 of the RPC, two (2) degrees higher than reclusion temporal- the penalty following reclusion
perpetua
Lastly, since petitioner is convicted of six (6) counts of qualified theft through falsification
of commercial documents with corresponding six (6) penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion
perpetua, Art. 70 of the RPC on successive service of sentences shall apply.
Prescription of Crimes (RPC and Special Penal Laws)
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISISON ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v.
THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN Conchita Carpio-Morales et al.
G.R. No. 206357, November 12, 2014, Third Division, Velasco, Jr., J.
When date of the violation was committed be not known, then it shall begin to run from the
discovery of said violation and the institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment.
Facts:
By virtue of Administrative Order No. 13 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos creating a
Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, a report dated January 4, 1993
identified the accounts of Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC) as behest in character. Later the
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6,
2003 with the Office of the Ombudsman, against respondent directors and officers of RHC and the
directors of DBP for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3 (g) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-
Graft
and
Corrupt
Practices
Act.
However
the
Ombudsman
dismissed
petitioner’s
Affidavit-
Complaint on grounds of prescription. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the offense has already prescribed.
Ruling:
Yes. RA 3019, Section 11 provides that all offenses punishable under said law shall
prescribe in ten years. This period was later increased to 15 years with the passage of BP Blg. 195,
which took effect on March 16, 1982. This does not mean, however, that the longer prescriptive
period shall apply to all violations of RA 3019. The longer prescriptive period of 15 years pursuant
to BP Blg. 195 cannot be applied to crimes committed prior to the effectivity of the said amending
law on March 16, 1982. Considering that the crimes were committed in 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975,
and 1977, the applicable prescriptive period thereon is the ten-year period set in RA 3019, the law

Criminal velasco cases copy

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie Criminal velasco cases copy

Ähnlich wie Criminal velasco cases copy (19)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Criminal velasco cases copy