Crim Case Digests (2014 Decisions) by Stella Lyn Amistad

Criminal Law I Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

Case Digests (2014 Decisions)

Submitted by Freshmen Batch 2019

Page | 1

Page | 2

Justifying Circumstances Self-defense Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Self-defense) Facts: Rodolfo and his son, Joey, were charged with the crimes of frustrated homicide and homicide of Erwin and David Ordonez, respectively. Petitioners claimed that Erwin, David and their companion Philip forced their way into the petitionersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; compound and threw stones at the house and tricycle of Rodolfo. Moreover, petitioners alleged that David threatened to kill and proceeded to hit Rodolfo, who in self-defense, hacked and stabbed the Ordonez brothers with a bolo. On the contrary, the prosecution claimed that, while walking home from a party, David was suddenly stabbed by Joey and immediately thereafter Rodolfo hacked Erwin, hitting his arm and back. After which, he was dragged into the petitionersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; compound where he was hacked and stabbed 13 times and ultimately lost consciousness. The RTC and subsequently the Court of Appeals gave credence to the prosecution's version of the incident and found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of frustrated homicide and homicide.

Issue: Page | 3

Whether or not the justifying circumstance of selfdefense was present.

Ruling: No. For the justifying circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated, the petitioners had the burden of proof to show that the killing and frustrated killing of David and Erwin, respectively, were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons resorting to self-defense. Of all the burdens carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression which must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. 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 case at bar, the there was no unlawful aggression in the part of the victims as they were suddenly attacked by herein petitioners.

Page | 4

People of the Philippines vs. Erwin Lalog, Roosevelt Concepcion, Edwin Ramirez, and Ricky Litada G.R. No. 196753, April 21, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Self-Defense) Facts: On September 29, 1999 at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Ryan Gain, Roswel Mercado, Rex Rey and Jayson Manzo were strolling at the Municipal Park of Poblacion, Municipality of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, when they were blocked by four persons, namely Erwin Lalog, Roosevelt Concepcion, Edwin Ramirez and Ricky Litada. Lalog angrily talked to Gain, but Mercado intervened and apologized to the group of Lalog. Later, Gain and Mercado went down the stairs of the park locally known as the "RAINBOW" Mercado walking ahead of Gain by six arms length; when he looked back, he saw Gain being ganged upon by the group of the accused-appellants held both the hands of Gain, while Lalog stabbed Gain. Fearing for his life, Roswel immediately fled the scene. Sensing that the assailants had left the scene, Mercado approached Gain and brought him to the hospital but it was already too late for he was declared dead on arrival. On the other hand, Lalog admitted stabbing Gain in self-defense, while the other three appellants, Concepcion, Ramirez, and Litada denied their participation in the stabbing incident, claiming that the three of them were in a drinking session, in the house of Ramirezâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aunt in Quezon Street, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Page | 5

Issue: Whether or not Lalog is justified in the crime he committed by self-defense. Ruling: To avail of self-defense as a justifying circumstance so as not to incur any criminal liability, it must be proved with certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. It cannot be entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also doubtful. If the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction, shall of necessity follow on the basis of his admission of the killing. The claim of Lalog that he stabbed Gain at the back portion of the latter's body (lumbar area) while the former was lying down is not only uncorroborated by any other evidence but it is improbable and contrary to the physical evidence because how could Lalog stab Gain's back when the former was lying on the ground while the latter was on top and at the same time choking him. The testimony of prosecution witness Mercado that Gain was stabbed at his back by Lalog while both his hands were being held by the other appellants is more logical, believable and in consonance with the physical evidence. Gain could not have been easily stabbed at his back if his hands were not being held considering that Gain is much Page | 6

taller and bigger in built than the accused particularly Lalog unless Gain just simply let his back (lumbar area) be stabbed without any resistance or struggle on his part which is impossible under any state of circumstances. Furthermore, the number of wounds sustained by Gain is indicative of Lalog's desire to kill the former and not really defend himself because not a single moment of the incident was his life and limb being endangered which is the essence of selfdefense. The fact that the deceased Gain was not armed all the more negates self-defense. The number of wounds sustained by the victim negated Lalog's claim of self-defense; rather, it was indicative of appellants' intent to kill.

Page | 7

People of the Philippines vs. Alex De Los Santos G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Self-defense) Facts: Catriz and the accused-appellant were brothers-inlaw. The formerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wife was the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sister. While Bayudan and Catriz were transferring the chickens into a cage beside the vehicle, the accused-appellant suddenly appeared behind Catriz and hacked him on his right shoulder with a tabas(long-bladed bolo). The impact from the blow caused the handle of the tabas to dislodge thus enabling Catriz to run towards the nearest house. The accused-appellant, however, drew a "Rambo-type" knife, pursued Catriz and repeatedly stabbed him until he fell. Pleading for his life, Catriz kneeled infront of the accused-appellant and asked him to stop. His pleas were not heeded though and the accused-appellant continued stabbing him until he fell again on the ground. Upon seeing the lifeless Catriz, the accused-appellant jumped and exclaimed: "Happy New Year, natayenni Ferdie!" (Happy New Year, Ferdie is dead!). The accused-appellant thereafter went to a nearby pump well and nonchalantly washed his hands. The witnesses for the defense were the accusedappellant himself and his uncle, Joseph Aginawang. According to them, on the night of April 4, 2004, they had a drinking spree with Catriz. After consuming two bottles of gin, Catriz asked the accused-appellant if he can till the family lot in Bagumbayan, Tuao, Cagayan. Page | 8

When the accused-appellant answered that he cannot decide on the matter since the land is family-owned, Catriz suddenly stood up and slapped the accusedappellant’s face. The accused-appellant did not take offense and simply left, while Catriz summoned his wife and children, and headed home.1âwphi1Catriz, however, returned between 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. looking for the accused-appellant but didn’t find him. Catriz was again unable to find the accused-appellant when he returned the next day. On April 6, 2004, at about 4:00 p.m., the accusedappellant saw Catriz unloading chickens. He approached him and offered help, but Catriz pushed him away causing the accused-appellant to stumble down. Catriz then tried to hack the accused-appellant twice with a bolo but the latter was able to dodge the attacks. On Catriz’s third attempt, the accusedappellant got hold of a knife from the wall of a nearby house and defended himself by plunging the same on Catriz. When Catriz again attempted to hack the accused-appellant, the latter shoved the knife against him once more. The accused-appellant failed to recall how many times he stabbed Catriz because he got dizzy and lost touch with his senses. Dazed with what he has just witnessed, ran to the back of a house towards a accused-appellant, on the other hand, towards the road where he met one Abe

Aginawang creek. The proceeded Ballesil who

Page | 9

accompanied him, upon his request, to the police station to surrender Issue: WON accused-appellants contention of self-defense correct? Ruling: No. Even an assiduous examination of the records of the case yields a similar finding: the factual basis of accused-appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plea of self-defense cannot relieve him from criminal liability. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. However, if the accused admits killing the victim, but pleads selfdefense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part. Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Thus, to escape criminal liability, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), viz: (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.

Page | 10

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense Here, the accused-appellant failed to prove that unlawful aggression was initiated by Catriz. The testimony of expert witness Dr. Yuaga further confirmed that such incised wound could have been inflicted from behind. Also, Aginawang admitted on cross-examination that it was the accusedappellFurther, the location, the number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on Catriz indicate a determined effort to kill and not merely to defend ant who delivered the first aggression by stabbing Catriz. Based on Dr. Yuagaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s post-mortem examination, 4 of the 11 stab wounds inflicted on Catriz were in the mid extremity of the heart area sufficient to cause instantaneous death. Court agrees with the CAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s observation that the presence of a knife in the wall of the nearby house was highly dubious. In fine, the courts a quo were correct in finding that the accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving the justifying circumstance of self-defense. The Court also upholds the findings of the courts a quo that the killing of Catriz by the accused-appellant was attended with treachery.

Page | 11

Federico Sabay vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 192150, October 1, 2014 Re: Justifying Circumstance (Self-defense) Facts: The petitioner Federico Sabay and his daughter Erlinda were busy laying wood and water pipes in the yard of Godofredo Lopez in the afternoon of June 12, 2001. Lopez the confronted the petitioner (Sabay) alleging the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intrusion in the property of Lopez which then arise verbal argument. In the course of the argument, Erlinda then hit Lopez with a hard object in the head then followed by a stone thrown by the petitioner in Lopezâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; face breaking the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye glasses where he claimed to have caused his dizziness. It was further stated that both the petitioner and Erlinda shouted at Lopez and threatened to kill him. Someone in the person of Jarvie Lopez came to calm the parties but the later was hit in the hand with a bolo until the neighbors intervene and stopped them. Jervie Lopez then filed a complaint against the petitioner in the barangay but then agreed to settle the complaint through a Kasunduan. However, the Kasunduan was not implemented thus the petitioner was then charged before the MTC with the crime of Physical Injuries where the petitioner pleaded not guilty denying the charge and claimed that he simply acted in self-defense. He narrated that on that day of the incident, it was Lopez who suddenly hit him with an iron bar and came Jesus Lopez, son of Godofredo Lopez, Page | 12

who came out of their house bringing with him a .38 caliber gun then fired at Sabay and in defense, he got a stone and threw it at Godofredo. Issue: Whether or not the accused be acquitted invoking self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Ruling: No. The MTC rejected the petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s claim of selfdefense for lack of clear, convincing and satisfactory supporting evidence. The MTC held that the petitioner failed to prove that there had been unlawful aggression by Godofredo; he did not even present the medical certificate of his injury as evidence. The latter court was supported by the RTC by affirming its decision. Self-defense as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the acts that would have been criminal in character had it not been for the presence of circumstances whose legal consequences negate the commission of a crime. The plea of self-defense in order to exculpate the accused must be duly proven. The most basic rule is that no self-defense can be recognized until unlawful aggression is established. Since the accused alleges self-defense, he carries the burden of evidence to prove that he satisfied the elements required by law; he who alleges must prove. By admitting the commission of the act charged and Page | 13

pleading avoidance based on the law, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence to prove that the facts that the legal avoidance requires are present; the weakness of the prosecutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evidence is immaterial after he admitted the commission of the act charged.

Page | 14

People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Villalba y Duran and Randy Villalba y Sarco G.R. No. 207629, October 22, 2014 Re: Justifying Circumstance (Self-defense) Facts: On April 29, 2006 at around 2:30 dawn at Capitol Avenue in Butuan City accused Arnel Villalba and Randy Villalba were alleged for conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, attack and stab one Maximillian Casona using an ice pick, hitting him at his left breast and left portion of his stomach causing his death. The aforementioned incident happened when the group of Maximilian came across the two accused after attending a cocktail party. The two groups did not know each other then. However, due to intoxication and spiteful exchange of provocative statements, the encounter resulted to a fight which ended up to the death of Maximilian. During arraignment, the two accused pleaded not guilty but was however charged guilty by the RTC. The accused then appealed their conviction invoking that the court erred in its decision by failing to appreciate the existence of self-defense on the part of the accused Arnel Villalba.

Page | 15

Issue: Whether or not the accused Arnel Villalba, on appeal, be acquitted from the crime charged invoking self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Ruling: No. The CA held that accused Arnel cannot invoke self-defense for the reason that among the 3 requisites, - (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no unlawful aggression was proven for it to constitute as a justifying circumstance. Thus, the court remained to its decision convicting the two accused guilty of the crime of murder.

Page | 16

Sherwin Dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 189405, November 19, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Self –Defense) Facts: Sherwin de la Cruz, the petitioner was charged with the crime of homicide in an Information dated March 2, 2005, which alleged: That on or about the 1st day of January 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with intent to kill and with the use of an unlicensed firearm, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one JEFFREY WERNHER GONZALES Y LIM on the head, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal gunshot wound which directly caused his death. The prosecution states that on January 1, 2005 around 2:30 pm, petitioner went to the office of Sykes Asia Inc 25 th floor Robinsons Summit Center, Ayala Ave, Makati City, then went to the work station of the deceased, Jeffrey Wernher L. Gonzales (Jeffrey), who according to the witness Antonette Managbanag’s sketch was seated facing his computer with his back towards the aisle. As the petitioner was approaching the victim, he was already holding a gun pointed to the back of Jeffrey’s head. Jeffrey managed to deflect the hand of the petitioner holding the gun. A short struggle for the gun ensued. Petitioner won the struggle, remained in possession of the gun, pointed the gun to Jeffrey’s Page | 17

head, pulled the trigger four (4) time, the fourth finally discharging the bullet which hit Jeffrey in the forehead, killing him. Petitioner fled the office afterwards. The defense states that on January 1, 2005 around 2:30 pm, the petitioner went to Sykes Asia with his children to fetch his wife, Darlene dela Cruz (Darlene) from the 25 th floor of Robinson’s Summit Building in Makati City to celebrate the New Years Together. Petitioner underwent the regular security check-up procedures. He was frisked by the guards-on-duty manning the main entrance of said building. No firearm was found in his possession. He registered his name at the logbook and surrendered a valid ID. He was frisked again in the 25 th floor, still no gun was found on him. He did not find his wife at the table however. The petitioner approached a man and asked the whereabouts of his wife after introducing himself as Darlene’s husband. Petitioner was asked why he was looking for Darlene, he replied that he was asked to fetch her. To which Jeffrey replied, “Ayaw na nga ng asawa mo sayo sinusundo mo pa!” which shocked and appalled the petitioner. Petitioner inquired who he was, and Jeffrey suddenly cursed at him. Jeffrey suddenly picked up something in his chair which happened to be a gun. Jeffrey pointed it at petitioner’s face followed by a clicking sound. The gun did not fire. Petitioner grappled with Jeffrey for the possession of the gun. The gun clicked for two to three more times, still it did not fire. Page | 18

Petitioner was able to wrest away the gun from Jeffrey and tried to run away to avoid further confrontation. Jeffrey blocked the path and shouted “Guard! Guard!”. Jeffrey then took a fire extinguisher, aimed, and was about to smash the same on petitioner’s head. Acting instinctively, petitioner parried the attack while still holding the gun. The gun accidentally fired and the single bullet hit Jeffrey’s forehead, which caused the latter to fall to the floor. After the incident, Darlene left the petitioner and brought with her their two young children. Petitioner later learned that Darlene had an illicit relationship with Jeffrey. During the trial, the prosecution presented the oral testimonies of Marie Antonette Managbanag (Managbanag), Maria Angelina Pelaez (Pelaez) and Carlos Alberto Lim Gonzales (Gonzales), and several pieces of documentary evidence to support its claim. For its part, the defense presented as witnesses, petitioner himself; his brother, Simeon Sander Dela Cruz III (Cruz), Greg Lasmarias Elbanvuena (Elbanvuena) and Managbanag, who was recalled to the witness stand as witness for the defense. Petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, February 26, 2007 Regional Trial Court Makati City Branch 147. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal March 28, 2007. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition. Page | 19

Issues: 1. Whether all the requisites of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, as provided for by law and settled jurisprudence, are present in this case. 2. Whether the firing of the gun wherein only a single bullet was discharged therefrom was merely accidental which occurred during the time that the petitioner-appellant was still in the act of defending himself from the continuous unlawful aggression of the deceased victim. 3. Whether the prosecution was able to prove all the essential elements constituting the crime of homicide. 4. Whether the privileged mitigating circumstance of self-defense is applicable in this case. 5. Whether petitioner-appellant may be held civilly liable for the death of the victim arising from the accident that transpired. Ruling: 1. Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger â&#x20AC;&#x201D; not merely threatening and intimidating action. There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely speculative. The defense did not adduce evidence to show that Jeffrey condescendingly Page | 20

responded to petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s questions or initiated the confrontation before the shooting incident; that Jeffrey pulled a gun from his chair and tried to shoot petitioner but failed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an assault which may have caused petitioner to fear for his life. Even assuming that the gun originated from Jeffrey and an altercation transpired and danger may have existed, the imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment the petitioner disarmed Jeffrey by wrestling the gun from him. After he seized it, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would have necessitated the need to kill Jeffrey. The petitioner had every opportunity to run away from the scene and seek help but refused to do so. It is settled that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. Prosecution witnesses whose credibility was not impeached, both gave the impression that the victim got the fire extinguisher to shield himself from the accused who was then already in possession of the gun. 6. The victim was holding the fire extinguisher while the second was holding the gun. The gun and the discharge thereof was unnecessary and disproportionate to repel the alleged aggression with the use of fire extinguisher. The rule is that the means employed by the person invoking selfPage | 21

defense contemplates a rational equivalence between the means of attack and the defense. It was the accused who was in a vantage position as he was armed with a gun, as against the victim who was armed, so to speak, with a fire extinguisher, which is not a deadly weapon. We find it highly specious for petitioner to go through the process of tussling and hassling with Jeffrey, and in the end, shooting the latter on the forehead, not only once, but four times, the last shot finally killing him, if he had no intention to hurt Jeffrey. The observation of the RTC dispels any doubt that the gun may have been shot accidentally to the detriment of Jeffrey. The fire was neither a disaster nor a misfortune of sorts. While petitioner may not have intended to kill Jeffrey at the onset, at the time he clicked the trigger thrice consecutively, his intent to hurt (or even kill) Jeffrey was too plain to be disregarded. There could not have been an accident because the victim herein suffered a gunshot wound on his head, a vital part of the body and, thus, demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life of the victim. Besides, petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failure to inform the police of the unlawful aggression on the part of Jeffrey and to surrender the gun that he used to kill the victim militates against his claim of self-defense 7. There is no question that petitioner authored the death of the deceased-victim, Jeffrey. Page | 22

8. In view of the foregoing, we find it illogical to discuss further the third element of self-defense since it is recognized that unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of selfdefense will have no basis. Hence, there is no basis to entertain petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s argument that a privileged mitigating circumstance of self-defense is applicable in this case, because unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. 9. Yes, they are jurisprudence.

accordance

with

prevailing

Page | 23

Defense of Relatives Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Defense of Relatives) Facts: This case concerns the fatal stabbing of Lino Mulinyawe (Lino) between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock in the evening of April 3, 1997 at Jabson Street in Acacia, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. The stabbing was preceded by a fight during a basketball game between Ross Mulinyawe, Lino’s son, and Ronald Medina, the younger brother of Ricardo and Randolf. In that fight, Ronald had hit Ross with a piece of stone. Hearing about the involvement of his brother in the fight, Randolf rushed to the scene and sent Ronald home. Ross was brought to the hospital for treatment. Once Lino learned that his son had sustained a head injury inflicted by one of the Medinas, he then went towards the house of the Medinas accompanied by his drinking buddies, Jose Tapan and Abet Menes. He had a bread knife tucked in the back, but his companions were unarmed. Along the way, Lino encountered Randolf whom he confronted about the fight. The two of them had a heated argument. Although Randolf tried to explain what had really happened between Ross and Ronald, Lino lashed out at Randolf and gripped the latter’s hand. Tapan almost simultaneously punched Randolf in the face. Lino, already holding the knife in his right hand, swung the knife at Randolf who was not hit. Randolf retreated towards the store and took two empty bottles of beer, broke the bottles and attacked Page | 24

Lino with them. Arriving at the scene, Ricardo saw what was happening, and confronted Lino. A commotion ensued between them. Ricardo entered their house to get a kitchen knife and came out. Lino made a thrust at Ricardo but failed to hit the latter, who then stabbed Lino on the left side of his chest, near the region of the heart. Lino fell face down on the ground. After that, Ricardo walked away, while Randolf threw the broken bottles at the fallen Lino. During trial the Defense claimed that it was Lino who had attacked Ricardo with a knife, and that Lino had accidentally stabbed himself by falling frontward and into his own knife. The RTC found Ricardo guilty of Homicide but acquitted his co-accused brother Randolf for insufficiency of evidence. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification of the penalty and civil liability. Issue: Whether or not the Accused can invoke Justifying Circumstance of Defense of a Relative (Art. 11, RPC). Ruling: No. In order that defense of a relative is to be appreciated in favor of Ricardo, the following requisites must concur, namely: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person Page | 25

attacked, that the person making the defense took no part in the provocation. Like in self-defense, it is the accused who carries the burden to prove convincingly the attendance and concurrence of these requisites because his invocation of this defense amounts to an admission of having inflicted the fatal injury on the victim. In invoking defense of a relative, Ricardo states that his immediate impulse upon seeing Randolf being attacked by Lino with a knife was to get his own weapon and to aid in the defense of Randolf. But that theory was inconsistent with his declaration at the trial that Linoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fatal wound had been self-inflicted, as it presupposes direct responsibility for inflicting the mortal wound. Thus, his defense was unworthy of belief due to its incongruity with human experience.

Page | 26

Leopoldo Quintos Y Del Amor vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 20529, September 10, 2014 RE: Justifying Circumstance (Defense of Relatives) Facts: Petitioner, Leopoldo Quintos y Del, with his brothers Pedro, Rolly and Lando, all surnamed Quintos, and Narciso Buni in conspiracy with each other, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously accost, maul and hack with bolo and samurai the victims who suffered hacking wounds, several lacerations and contusions on the different parts of their body. [In Criminal Cases nos. 8341-2] victims Robert M. dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz, was able to survive their injuries from the assault, by reason of the timely medical intervention applied on them. [In Criminal Case no. 8340] however, victim Freddie dela Cruz died; whoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hacking wounds he suffered on the different parts of his body was the proximate cause of his death. Of the five accused, Pedro Quintos, Narciso Buni and petitioner were arrested. Rolly and Lando evaded arrest and remain at large. Petitioner, Pedro and Narciso all pled not guilty to the charges brought against them. Nevertheless, accused (petitioner) Leopoldo Quintos, along with Pedro Quintos, And Narciso Buni was found guilty and convicted for attempted homicide and homicide.

Page | 27

Petitioner avers that his conviction was not supported by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His argument revolves mainly on self-defense, defense of relatives and absence of conspiracy. Moreover, accomplice Pedro Quintos admitted to hacking and hitting the victims and deceased, invoking selfdefense. Because of Pedroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s admissions, he and his coconspirators assumed the burden to establish such defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, the same admissions would lead to their conviction. Issue: Whether or not the defendant could invoke the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of relatives? Ruling: NO. The following loopholes were found: First, as Pedro claims in his testimony, the dela Cruzes were shouting for the brothers of Pedro to come out of the house. No actual sudden or imminent attack, however, was performed. It has been ruled that mere intimidating or threatening words, even if said aloud, do not constitute unlawful aggression. Furthermore, as Pedro testified, the dela Cruzes were shouting for his brothers to go out, but then, Pedro was the one who went out. If, indeed, the dela Cruzes had some anger or aggression at that time, it was definitely not directed at Pedro. Page | 28

Then, as Pedro went down to pacify the dela Cruzes, Pedro and Robert dela Cruz engaged in a fist fight. Robert turned and ran towards his mother, Felomina to allegedly get a bolo which was in Felomina’s possession and concealed under a towel. If this is true, Robert had already retreated and was trying to arm himself to level the supposed fight with Pedro. Thus, from Pedro’s narration, it cannot be definitely said that the dela Cruzes went to the house of the accusedappellants with the determined intention to inflict serious harm on Pedro. Second, Pedro claims that he was trying to defend his brother Lando Quintos who was lying on the ground and being attacked by the deceased Freddie dela Cruz. According to him, he hacked Freddie before the latter could stab Lando. Pedro would like to impress upon the court that Lando was also involved in the fight against the dela Cruzes. However, in the same testimony, Pedro said that it was he alone who was fighting Robert, Freddie and Felomina, and that his brothers, including Lando, were “just there, sir, pacifying.” Third, despite the alleged savagery that transpired, surprisingly, accused-appellants did not report the incident to the police. Lastly, the nature of the wounds inflicted on the deceased and the other victims negate[s] the accused-appellants’ claim of self-defense.

Page | 29

Page | 30

Exempting Circumstances Insanity People of the Philippines V. Romeo Plastina G.R. No. 205310, September 17, 2014 Re: Exempting Circumstance (Insanity) Facts: On January 29, 2005 around 3:00 pm, a car was park in front of the house of Lourdes situated in La Union. Appellant emerged from the car and directly entered the house with a gun. Lourdes was then manicuring the fingernails of her aunt Aida, the victim. The appellant called Aida and went directly to her about a foot away, then shot her on the forehead causing the victims instantaneous death. Appellant thereafter fled. Lourdes, the niece was just a meter away when she witnessed the shooting incident. Appellant's defense was the exempting circumstance of insanity and claimed that he has no recollection of what transpired during the incident as he was heavily drunk. It was only right after he woke up in the jail the following day he knew about it. He maintained that his severe alcohol intoxication triggered the uncontrollable seizure attack that made him shoot his own sister. He presented a psychiatrist to support his theory but the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the the crime of murder and this was affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Page | 31

Issue: Whether or not he can be held criminally liable for the death of his sister. Ruling: Yes. Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason, discernment and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime. The report of the psychiatrist, Dr. Cabanlet does not fully indicate that the accused was under the state of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime. It merely suggested a possible affliction called "seizure disorder" caused by excessive drinking at the time the accused shot the victim. Intoxication does not equate to insanity. The accused was well aware of the surrounding when he directly entered the house and recognized the victim by calling her name before shooting her which means that he was not completely impaired of his senses. Appellant's claim of insanity was unavailing because the evidence presented were insufficient.

Page | 32

People vs. UMAWID G.R. No. 208719, June 09, 2014 Re: Exempting Circumstance (Insanity) Facts: At around 4 o’clock in the afternoon of November 26, 2002, Vicente Ringor (Vicente) was staying with his two (2)-year old granddaughter, Maureen Joy Ringor (Maureen), at the terrace of their house located at Villanueva, San Manuel, Isabela. Suddenly, Umawid (Accused-Appellant) appeared and started attacking Vicente with a panabas with neither reason nor provocation. While Vicente was able to evade Umawid’s blows, the latter nevertheless hit Maureen on her abdomen and back, causing her instantaneous death. Upon seeing Maureen bloodied, Umawid walked away. Thereafter, Umawid went to a nearby house which was only five (5) meters away from Vicente’s house where his nephew, Jeffrey R. Mercado (Jeffrey), was sleeping. Awakened by the commotion, Jeffrey went outside only to see his uncle charging at him with his panabas. Instinctively, Jeffrey, along with his sister and cousin, rushed inside the house to seek for safety. However, Umawid was able to prevent Jeffrey from closing the door of the house, and, as such, the former was able to barge into the said house. Cornered and nowhere else to go, Jeffrey crouched and covered his head with his arms to shield him from Umawid’s impending attacks. Eventually, Umawid delivered fatal Page | 33

hacking blows to Jeffrey, causing the mutilation of the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fingers. Umawid only stopped his barrage upon seeing Jeffrey, who was then pretending to be dead, leaning on the wall and blood-stained. For his part, Umawid set up the defense of insanity, but did not, however, take the witness stand to attest to the same. Instead, he presented the testimonies of Dr. Arthur M. Quincina (Dr. Quincina) and Dr. Leonor Andres Juliana (Dr. Juliana) to bolster his claim. Dr. Quincina testified that he evaluated Umawidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s psychiatric condition in May 2002, February 2003, and on March 24, 2003 and found that the latter was manifesting psychotic symptoms. However, he could not tell with certainty whether Umawid was psychotic at the time of the commission of the crimes. On the other hand, Dr. Juliana failed to testify on Umawidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mental state since she merely referred the latter to another doctor for further evaluation. Issue: How does Article 12 Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability, define an insane person? Held: Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, i.e., when the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties is not Page | 34

enough, especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties and is manifested in language and conduct. Thus, in order to lend credence to a defense of insanity, it must be shown that the accused had no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her acts. In this case, Umawid solely relied on the testimonies of Dr. Quincina and Dr. Juliana to substantiate his plea of insanity. Records, however, reveal that Dr. Quincina’s testimony only showed that he evaluated Umawid’s mental condition in May 2002, February 2003, and March 2003. In other words, he only examined Umawid six (6) months before the latter committed the crimes and three (3) months and four (4) months thereafter. Notably, he admitted that his findings did not include Umawid’s mental disposition immediately before or at the very moment when he committed such crimes. As such, Dr. Quincina’s testimony cannot prove Umawid’s insanity. Neither would Dr. Juliana’s testimony shore up Umawid’s cause as the former failed to attest to the latter’s mental condition and even referred him to another doctor for further evaluation. Given these circumstances, Umawid’s defense of insanity remained unsubstantiated and, hence, he was properly adjudged by the RTC and the CA as criminally liable.

Page | 35

Mitigating Circumstances Minority People vs Fieldad, Cornista, Pimente G.R. No. 196005, October 1, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Minority) Facts: The appellants Fieldad, Cornista, and Pimentel were charged with the murder of two BJMP jail guards within the detention compounds of their confinement; as well as theft of the car they used as a getaway vehicle to facilitate their escape from prison. The accused gave an alibi that they were somewhere else from the nipa hut where the guards were killed; that they didnt conspire with treachery and; that they were only inspired with fear to steal and drive the car. Issue: Whether or not Ryan Cornista is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Ruling: Yes. The appellate court established that Cornista, by his “act of grappling for possession of an armalite with [JO1] Bacolor and hitting the latter’s head”, acted with discernment; that is, he was able to distinguish between

Page | 36

right and wrong and know fully well the consequences of his acts. Thus, he may not be excused from criminal liability.

Page | 37

Carillo vs People G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Minority) Facts: Rosal Carillo, seventeen years old, stabbed Jayson Espinola during a high school graduation. Espinola was brought to the hospital and stayed there for more than a month. The wound had a complication which caused organ failure from infection, which was the cause of death. RTC imposed imprisonment for four years and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay to the heirs of the victim P81,890.04 as actual damages for medical and funeral expenses, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. CA modified the punishment to penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor and reduced the civil aspect to Php 16,300.00 of actual damages. A civil indemnity, in the amount of Php 50,000.00, is awarded to the legal heirs of the victim Jason Espinola. Issues: Whether or not the CA imposed the correct penalty imposable on him taking into consideration the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised Penal Code and Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law)

Page | 38

Ruling: Yes. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Carillo was a minor and such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty to prision mayor. Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. The petitioner insists that the maximum of his indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of prision correccional to enable him to apply for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968. The petitioner has no legal basis to back him up on his claims. Neither the Revised Penal Code, nor Republic Act No. 9344, nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. The amended decision of the CA imposed the ultimate minimums of the indeterminate penalty for homicide under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in conjunction to A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC10 (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law) Section 46 (2), in conjunction with Section 5 (k).

Page | 39

People v. Ocdol G.R. No. 200645, August 20, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Minority) Facts: On August 31, 2000 at 8:00pm, a 15 year-old girl was about to head home from buying ice requested by her mother. Edison, someone she knew, called her because he said he wanted to tell her something. When she came near, he held her arm and dragged her to a dark portion of the chapel near the store,while poking a knife at her. She saw two other people waiting for them—Dante and Wendel. Wendel lay on top of the girl and had carnal knowledge with her while Dante and Edison were each pointing an Indian pana and knife at her. Dante and Edison were both minors(not mentioned in the case how old they were). The RTC ruled that the “sweetheart theory” of the defendant was not supported by evidence and was merely alleged, in short, the prosecution have successfully discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that appellant forced the victim to have sex with him, with the assistance of his co-accused. The RTC also appreciated the minority of the accomplices. The CA affirmed RTC’s decision and the Supreme Court further concurred with modifications on awarding damages, thereby increasing them. Issue: Was the mitigating circumstance appreciated in this case?

Page | 40

Ruling: Yes. Edison and Dante were accomplices in the crime of rape, but because of their minority, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, their sentence was lowered to two years, four months and 1 day of prision correccional medium as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.

Page | 41

Voluntary Surrender Mariano vs. People G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Voluntary Surrender) Facts: Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner type jeep along Barangay Engkanto, Angat, Bulacan. With him were his wife, Urbanita, and their two-year old son. Reynaldo Mariano was driving his red Toyota pick-up with his wife, and their helper. The pick-up overtook the jeep of Ferdinand de Leon and almost bumped it. Ferdinand got mad, overtook the pick-up and blocked its path. Reynaldo stopped the pick-up behind the jeep. Ferdinand alighted from his jeep and approached Reynaldo. Ferdinand claimed that he and Reynaldo had an altercation. However, Reynaldo insisted that he just stayed inside the pick-up and kept quiet while Ferdinand hurled invectives at him. Urbanita tried to pacify Ferdinand and sought the assistance of Luis de Leon. Ferdinand and Reynaldo heeded the advice of Luis and they went their separate ways. Ferdinand decided to drop by his motherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house in San Roque, Angat to pick up some items. He parked his jeep in front of the house of his mother and alighted therefrom. However, hewas bumped by a moving vehicle, thrown four (4) meters away and lost consciousness. Page | 42

Urbanita identified the fast moving vehicle that bumped Ferdinand as the same red Toyota pick-up driven by Reynaldo. On the other hand, Reynaldo and his wife tried to show that the jeep of Ferdinand stopped on the road in front of the house of the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mother about five (5) to six (6) meters away from their pick-up. Reynaldo stopped the pick-up as he saw an incoming vehicle, which he allowed to pass. Then he made a signal and overtook the jeep of Ferdinand. However, Ferdinand suddenly alighted from his jeep, lost his balance and was sideswipedby the overtaking pick-up. Reynaldo did not stop his pick-up and he proceeded on his way for fear that the bystanders might harm him and his companions. After bringing his companions to their house, Reynaldo proceeded to Camp Alejo in Bulacan to surrender and report the incident. Ferdinand suffered multiple facial injuries, a fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital wall and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma. Urbanita, received the amount of P50,000.00 from Reynaldo Mariano by way of financial assistance. The RTC convicted the petitioner of frustrated homicide. On appeal, the CA modified the felony to reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. Issue: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of the petitioner?

Page | 43

RULING: No. Under Article 365, the carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the wrongful act may vary from one situation to another, in nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and in order that there may be a fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must have ample discretion in its imposition, without being bound by what We may call the mathematical formula provided for in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. On the basis of this particular provision, the trial court was not bound to apply paragraph 5 of Article 64 in the instant case even if appellant had two mitigating circumstances in his favor with no aggravating circumstance to offset them. In its decision, the CA found that Ferdinand had sustained multiple facial injuries, a fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital wall, and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severehead trauma; that he had become stuporous and disoriented as to time, place and person. Ferdinandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical injuries were those under Article 263, 3, for having incapacitated him from the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged in for more than 90 days. Conformably with Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is arresto mayorin its minimum and medium periods, which ranges from one to four months. Page | 44

The Court holds that the straight penalty of two months of arresto mayorwas the correct penalty for the petitioner.

Lumauig v. People G.R. No.166680, July 7, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Voluntary Surrender & Other Analogous Circumstances) Facts: In 1998, COA Auditor Florence L. Paguirigan examined the year-end reports involving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao. Upon said examination, COA found that Aloysius Dait Lumauig, then Municipal Mayor of Alfonso Lista, failed to account forP101,736.00 which he received by way of cash advance for payment of the insurance coverage of the twelve motorcycles purchased by the municipality. Petitioner admitted that he obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 during his incumbency as municipal mayor. However, instead of motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. Petitioner claimed that he thought he didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to settle/liquidate the aforementioned amount since the vehicles were already turned over to the municipality. Petitioner also alleged that he did not receive any demand from COA for a liquidation of the amount advanced and it was only in 2001 that he knew of the matter. Upon finding out about the unliquidated cash advance, petitioner paid Page | 45

the amount of P101,736.00 to the municipal treasurer on June 4, 2001. The Sandiganbayan found the petitioner to have violated Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts). Also, the Sandiganbayan also considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender given the fact that petitioner, upon discovery of his delinquency, liquidated the subject cash advance. Issue: Whether or not the return or full restitution of unliquidated funds be considered as another mitigating circumstance in addition to voluntary surrender? Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan was correct in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender but it failed to consider full restitution of the funds that were previously unliquidated as another mitigating circumstance. The Court said that, in malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the funds misappropriated may be considered a mitigating circumstance being analogous to voluntary surrender. And although the case at bar does not involve malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code but rather failure to render an account under Article 218, the same reasoning applies. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to two mitigating circumstances. Page | 46

Incomplete Self-defense People vs. Alberto Almojuela y Villanueva G.R. No. 183202, June 2, 2014 Re: Mitigating Circumstance (Incomplete Self-defense) Facts: Alberto Almojuela was convicted of homicide by the trial court on November 21, 1993 in the City of Manila. According to the accused, on November 21, 1993, he was cooking pulutan for his drinking buddies Felicisimo Venezuela and Winfred Evangelista, when his daughter told him that smoke was entering their house. He checked toutside and saw the group of Paz, Quejong, Masula, and others, smoking marijuana. Almojuela confronted the group, to which Paz responded by cursing him. Despite this response, Almojuela simply went inside his house and continued with his cooking. Then, Pazâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s group, who were already high on drugs, called Almojuela and challenged him to a fistfight which Almojuela accepted. The fight only stopped when neighbors came in to stop them. When Almojuela was about to enter his house, Quejong pulled him and another fight ensued. This time, when Almojuela and Quejong were grappling on the ground, Kagawad Abarqueza interfered and tried to stop the fight to no avail. Because of this, Abarqueza hit Quejong twice in his back Page | 47

and fired two warning shots in the air. Upon hearing the gunshots, Quejong and his group ran away. At 10:30 in the evening of the same day, policemen came to Almojuela’s house. They did not find him because he hid at the kamoteng kahoy thicket near his house. He did not know though that Quejong sustained any serious injury since they only engaged in a fistfight and no bladed weapon was used. But he voluntarily surrendered himself when he learned from Kagawad Abarquez that Quejong had died from stab wounds. He surrendered to SPO1 Danilo Vidad through the assistance of a certain SPO4 Soriano, the following day. However, the prosecutor through its witness Sanito Masula, claimed that it was Almojuela who called upon his group as they were passing by the latter’s house. After a verbal altercation between Paz and Almojuela, a fight ensued between the two. Then, Almojuela stabbed Paz in his right arm, causing the latter to retreat. It was at this point that Quejong joined in the fight and grappled with Almojuela to the ground. Masula testified that he did not actually see Almojuela stab Quejong when they were grappling on the ground. But, he also said that he noticed blood on Quejong’s back. On Quejong’s way home, his friends saw that he had stab wounds in his back. They immediately rushed him to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital where he died approximately two to three hours from admission.

Page | 48

Upon his petition to the Supreme Court, Almojuela claimed that the CA erred in in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

Issue: Should the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense be appreciated in the case at bar? Ruling: No. This is due to the fact that the unlawful aggression did not start from the victim Quejong but from Almojuela. The prosecution proved that it was Almojuela who first challenged Paz and his group to a fight. Almojuela came prepared to fight and was in fact armed with a bladed weapon. However, the Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of Almojuela. This is because Almojuela gave himself up to a certain SPO4 Soriano upon learning of Quejong’s death. The Court further explained that, “The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledged his guilt or he wished to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.”

Page | 49

Page | 50

Aggravating Circumstances Taking advantage of his public position Alejandro C. Rivera v. People of the Philippines G. R. No. 156577, December 3, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Taking advantage of his public position)

FACTS: In 2001, AAA, after her parents had separated, lived with her godparents, Rose and Virgilio Antonio.Two separate informations for rape were filed against the accused-appellant, Virgilio Antonio before the RTC.The RTC rendered a Judgment convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape.The trial court considered the qualifying aggravating circumstance of relationship, since [accusedappellant] is supposedly the guardian of [AAA].The CA rendered a Decision affirming the accused-appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conviction and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two counts of rape. The CA noted with great significance that the fact of being a guardian was not alleged in the informations as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Instead, there was merely a stipulation during the pre-trial hearing that accusedappellant was the "godfather" of [AAA], without showing that accused-appellant was legally constituted in law as Page | 51

the "guardian" of [AAA]. On the other hand, the fact of minority of [AAA] has been proven by her birth certificate and confirmed by her physical appearance.Consequently, on the first count of rape, the CA found the existence of the aggravating circumstances of minority of [AAA] and commission of the sexual abuse in an uninhabited place. On the second count of rape, the CA found the fact of minority of [AAA] as the sole aggravating circumstance. ISSUE: Whether or not being a godfather to the victim is an aggravating circumstance. HELD: No. The Court agrees with the CAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s findings that only the generic aggravating circumstances of commission of the crime in an uninhabited place and minority can be appreciated relative to the first rape incident. As regards to the second rape incident, guardianship was alleged in the information and was not assailed by the defense. The Court notes, too, that the parties stipulated during the pre-trial that the accused-appellant was AAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s godfather. Notwithstanding the foregoing, jurisprudence strictly dictates that the guardian must be a person who has a legal relationship with his ward, which does not obtain in the case before this Court. Ineluctably, guardianship cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance and the accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.Nonetheless, this Court sustains the penalty of Page | 52

reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and CA on the accused-appellant for each of the two counts of rape which he committed. The aggravating circumstances of minority and commission of the crime in an uninhabited place were present as regards the first rape incident. The second rape was, on the other hand, aggravated by minority alone since legal guardianship was not proven. The aggravating circumstances attendant in the instant case are all merely generic and not qualifying. Generic aggravating circumstances increase the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree.

Page | 53

Minority/Age PEOPLE VS. BENJAMIN SORIA Y. GOMEZ GR NO 179031 FEBRUARY 24 2015 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Minority/Age Relationship)

and

Facts: The appellant was the father of the victim, sometime after eating spaghetti brought home by the father for merienda on Feb. 26 2000 the victim and her siblings proceeded to their bedrooms to rest where her father then followed. He then allegedly took off her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim complained of pain thereafter in her breast and vagina then her father apologized and left the room. She felt consistent pain in her vagina and it bled which prompted her to tell her aunt and they then proceeded to have a check up at the local hospital and then the child was given to the DSWD for custody. Medical exam showed an intact hymen was present but was hypereremic and that there were no signs of trauma, the victim as still virgin. This was done by Dr. Supe. On June 30, 2005, the trial court rendered its Judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against "AAA", his daughter of minor age, as charged in the Information. It ruled that the lack of tenacious resistance on the part of "AAA" is immaterial considering that appellants moral ascendancy and influence over her substitute for violence and intimidation. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the penalty for rape by sexual assault is prision mayor. However, the penalty is increased to reclusion temporal "if the rape is Page | 54

committed by any of the 10 aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article". The Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority. It was alleged that appellant is the father of "AAA".

Issue: Whether or not the relationship of the father and the victim and the minority clause in rape can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Held: Accused-appellant Benjamin Soria y Gomez is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve years of prison mayor, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that "AAA" is the daughter of appellant. During trial, appellant admitted his filial bond with "AAA"."Admission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim." It is settled that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance." As such, appellants relationship with "AAA" may be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Page | 55

EMILIO RAGA Y CASIKAT VS. PEOPLE GR NO 200697 FEBRUARY 19 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance Relationship)

(Minority/Age

and

Facts: Complainant AAA is the daughter of petitioner and BBB. They live in Payatas, Quezon City together with AAA’s two younger siblings. Petitioner was a painter while BBB was a bit player in movies. One night in the year 2000, while AAA’s mother, BBB, was out of the house and while AAA and her other siblings were sleeping, AAA, who was then five years old, was suddenly awakened when petitioner removed her clothes and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. He was unsuccessful in inserting his penis, he inserted his finger instead. He did that several times while holding his penis. A white substance later came out of his penis. AAA told BBB what petitioner did to her, but BBB did nothing. One night in May 2004, AAA, who was then already nine years old, was sleeping in the room while her siblings were sleeping with their father in the living room. AAA was suddenly awakened when her father carried her from the room to the living room. He then let AAA watch bold movies but AAA turned away. He, who was half– naked waist down, removed AAA’s clothes and on top of her trying to insert his penis into her vagina. He was unsuccessful in inserting his penis into her vagina, he inserted his finger instead. Because AAA was afraid of petitioner who used to whip her, she did not do anything. According to AAA, petitioner raped her several times but she could only remember two dates: one during the year 2000 and the other in May 2004. She testified that she was born on December 16, 1994 which fact was duly Page | 56

substantiated by her birth certificate. She likewise identified petitioner during the March 7, 2006 hearing. Petitioner, for his part, raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that he was a stayâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;in worker in his place of work in the year 2000. He also testified that on May 13, 2004, he saw AAA watching an Xâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;rated movie. He then hit her buttocks with a slipper to discipline her. On the same day, upon waking up, he saw his wife and AAA talking to a group of women from Bantay Bata. He claimed that that was the last time that he saw AAA. He claimed that he was surprised upon learning of the complaints for rape filed against him by AAA but upon learning of the charges, he voluntarily surrendered. Issue: Whether or not the rape is valid in an absence of a medical examination and if the penalties are proper considering the presence of aggravating qualifying circumstances. Held: Petitioner Emilio Raga y Casikat is hereby found GUILTY of Rape through Sexual Assault. Other than the circumstances of minority and relationship that raised the penalty to reclusion temporal, no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven.

Page | 57

People vs Camano March 12 2014 GR No. 207819 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Minority of rape victim) Facts: Cadano was charged with three counts of raping AAA, his common-law-spouse’s daughter on February 26, 2001. The first two counts occurred on December 26 and 27, 1996, when AAA was eight years and five months old. At this time, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was the appropriate charge for the felony, as Republic Act No. 8353, or the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997” was not yet passed. The third count occurred in June 2000, when AAA was 11 years and 11 months old, and after the passage of RA 8352. Hence, the appropriate charge was Article 266-A of the RPC. Issue: What aggravating circumstances, applicable to the incidents of rape?

any,

are

Ruling: The Supreme Court sustained the finding of guilt of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The presentation of AAA’s birth certificate to prove her age at the time of the commission of the felonies, as well as her positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, as corroborated by the medico-legal report, were enough for the court to conclude that the elements of statutory rape were present. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a

Page | 58

woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. For the third count, criminal liability, as provided by Article 335 of the RPC, the penalty for rape is increased from reclusion perpetua to death if the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Hence, the criminal liability is aggravated for the third count. This is not applicable to the first and second counts, as the appropriate charge did not contained the aggravating circumstance.

Page | 59

People vs Jesus Burce GR No. 201732 March 26, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstanc (Minority) Facts: At midnight of December 10, 2005, while AAA was sleeping, Burce removed her shorts and panty, and "went on to sexually ravish her." She recognized him as the lights were on. AAA resisted, but Burce was able to insert his penis into her vagina. She felt pain in her vagina and felt sorry for herself. Burce raped his daughter four more times subsequently. AAA was 14 years old at the time of the first incident of rape. Issue: Are the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship attendant in the case at bar? Ruling: Yes. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority were attendant in the case, as such were alleged in the Information and was proved during the trial. According to the Revised Penal Code, Death is the appropriate penalty for the felony. However, since the imposition of death penalty was outlawed by RA No. 9346, the penalty imposed on Burce was reclusion perpetua.

Page | 60

People of the Philippines v. Joel Abat y Cometa G.R. NO. 202704, April 2, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Minority/Age) FACTS: AAA was home when accused uncle brought her to town. She was instead brought to a nipa hut in another barangay, was laid down and undressed, she fought back but was slapped and punched by accused. He inserted his penis into her vagina while victim struggled. He made a push and pull movement and ejaculated. Accused threatened to kill her family if she reported. One day, accused forced her to go to his house so AAA told her parents of the incident and reported to the police. AAA gave birth to a baby. ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstance of minority and relationship can be considered as an aggravating/qualifying circumstance? HELD: Yes. As both minority of AAA and her relationship to Abat were sufficiently alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution, Abat should be convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Pregnancy of victim is not required for the conviction of an accused, it is sufficient that prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of the offended party and that he had committed such act under any of the circumstances in the RPC.

Page | 61

People of the Philippines v. Germenigildo Delen G.R. No. 194446, April 21, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Relationship and Minority) FACTS: AAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parents were separated. AAA lived with her aunt until accused father took her in. One day, she was awakened when accused removed her panty and inserted his penis into her organ. Again, AAA woke up her legs spread apart and tied, with no panties. He inserted his penis, told her that heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d cut her tongue and kill her. One day accused asked AAA to look for a lighter, failed to find one so he kicked her buttocks, hit her head with a hammer and smashed it on a wall, causing injuries. AAA escaped, went to the neighbor, and asked for help. Her wounds were treated and she was put to sleep. Barangay tanods came, and reported to the police. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of Relationship and minority (victim being 12 y.o.) is attendant in the commission of the offense, and the accused being the father of the offended party? HELD: Yes. Both the aggravating circumstance of relationship and minority is attendant in the commission of the offense, the accused being the father of the offended party and the victim being 12 years old. The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship attended the commission of the crime. Not only were the said circumstances specifically alleged in the information, the same were sufficiently proved during the trial of the case. Page | 62

Uninhabited Place PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGILIO ANTONIO y RIVERA G.R. No. 208623 July 23, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Uninhabited Place, Minority, Relationship) FACTS: Two separate informations for rape were filed against the accused-appellant, Virgilio Antonio before the RTC. Criminal Case No. 10244: In 2001, [AAA] after her parents had separated lived with her godparents, Rose and Virgilio Antonio. Just before lunch from helping his godfather harvest palay, AAA, a minor of 14 years of age, was led to a bamboo grove in the farm where she was threated to be killed if she told anyone. After which, he took off her shorts and underwear. Although very much alarmed, he likewise removed his own shorts and underwear.With both their private parts now uncovered, [accused-appellant] inserted his penis into [AAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s] vagina. She felt pain course through her genitals. Helpless, [AAA] could only cry and mutter "aray".They went home later that afternoon.In the commission of the offense, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was present. Criminal Case No. 10245: On August 26, 2003, while his wife and children went away to fiesta, Virgilio Antonio,being then the guardian of the Page | 63

private complainant [AAA], a minor 14 years of age, who was then under his care and custody, lied on top of AAA while she was sleeping awakening her. [Accusedappellant] was wearing a shirt and nothing else. AAA realized to her horror that her shorts and underwear had already been removed. [Accused-appellant] soon began to insert his penis into her vagina. He made a push-pull movement for a while. [AAA] was not able to shout a single word inside the room which had no light on. The trial court considered the qualifying aggravating circumstance of relationship, since [accused-appellant] is supposedly the guardian of [AAA].The CA rendered a Decision affirming the accused-appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conviction and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two counts of rape. The CA noted with great significance that the fact of being a guardian was not alleged in the information as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Instead, there was merely a stipulation during the pre-trial hearing that accused-appellant was the "godfather" of [AAA], without showing that accusedappellant was legally constituted in law as the "guardian" of [AAA]. On the other hand, the fact of minority of [AAA] has been proven by her birth certificate and confirmed by her physical appearance. Consequently, on the first count of rape, the CA found the existence of the aggravating circumstances of minority of [AAA] and commission of the sexual abuse in an uninhabited place. On the second count of rape, the CA found the fact of minority of [AAA] as the sole aggravating circumstance. ISSUE: Whether or not being a godfather to the victim is an aggravating circumstance. Page | 64

HELD: No. The Court agrees with the CAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s findings that only the generic aggravating circumstances of commission of the crime in an uninhabited place and minority can be appreciated relative to the first rape incident. As regards to the second rape incident, guardianship was alleged in the information and was not assailed by the defense. The Court notes, too, that the parties stipulated during the pre-trial that the accused-appellant was AAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s godfather. Notwithstanding the foregoing, jurisprudence strictly dictates that the guardian must be a person who has a legal relationship with his ward, which does not obtain in the case before this Court. Ineluctably, guardianship cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance and the accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape. Nonetheless, this Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and CA on the accused-appellant for each of the two counts of rape which he committed. The aggravating circumstances of minority and commission of the crime in an uninhabited place were present as regards the first rape incident. The second rape was, on the other hand, aggravated by minority alone since legal guardianship was not proven. The aggravating circumstances attendant in the instant case are all merely generic and not qualifying. Generic aggravating circumstances increase the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. Page | 65

Use of unlicensed firearm, in aid of armed men People of the Philippines vs. Noel Enojas y Hingpit G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Use of unlicensed firearm, in aid of armed men) Facts: As PO2 Gregorio and PO2 Pangilinan were patrolling, they spotted a suspiciously-parked taxi. They approached the taxi and asked the driver (Enojas) for his documents and asked Enojas to come with them to the police station for further questioning. Enojas left his taxi behind. Pangilinan wanted to relieve himself when they reached a convenience store. As he approached the store, he encountered two suspected robbers. Pangilinan shot one dead (Reynaldo Mendoza), and wounded another, but Pangilinan died. The firearm used was unlicensed according to the allegation in the Information. Gregorio left the police car and fired at an armed man. Enojas fled from the police car. PO2 Rosarito suspected that Enojas was involved in the attempted robbery. As such, they searched the abandoned taxi and found a mobile phone. PO3 Cambi was instructed to monitor the incoming messages. The police succeeded in entrapping Santos, Jalandoni, Enojas, and Gomez with the aid of the mobile phone, as they were named in the text messages. Upon the arrest of the accused, their phone numbers corresponded to the contacts in the mobile phone of Enojas. Page | 66

Issue: What aggravating circumstances, if any, should be applied in the case at bar? Ruling: The accused were found guilty of homicide with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms (Section 29 of RA 10591 Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives), and sentenced to 12 years of prison mayor as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals’ ruling as to the aggravating circumstance of “in aid of armed men” [Art. 14 (8), Revised Penal Code] since the men were acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused. As such, they are treated as co-principals or co-conspirators. In order to aggravate the felony under “in aid of armed men,” the men must act as accomplices only.

Page | 67

Page | 68

Fraud Angelito P. Miranda v. Ma. Theresa M. Fernandez A.M. No. P-14-3270 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3579-P] Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Fraud)

Facts: The complainant acts as an agent of money lenders Manuel P. Miranda and Josephine M. Cabusao (creditors).The respondent is a Clerk III at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. In January 2010, the respondent obtained a loan of Php 124,800.00 from the creditors through the complainant. The Agreement provided that the amount of loan shall be paid in qual installments of Php 2,600.00 every 15th and 30th of the month until fully paid; the first payment was to start on January 12, 2010. As a security for the loan, the respondent surrendered her ATM to allow the creditors to withdraw the amount every payday from her salaries with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). She undertook that “filing false Affidavits of Loss or causing any deliberate blocking of my ATM card in any form by myself, the Borrower, during this Agreement shall be a case for Perjury or Estafa.” She also executed a waiver of rights under the Bank Secrecy Law of the Philippines. However, on July 15, 2010, creditors went to the bank to collect the amount when the ATM machine stated “Invalid Card”. It appeared that the respondent reported to the LBP that she had lost her ATM card. Thus, the report enabled her to withdraw her salary over the counter and led to the issuance of a new ATM card in her favor; this then led to the blocking of her old ATM card, which prevented the Page | 69

withdrawals by her creditors. A day after the fraud, the complainant sent the respondent a demand letter, which she ignored. The complainant further filed an administrative complaint against the respondent, directed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA sent respondent various notices to comment on the complaint, but still respondent did not comply.

ISSUE: Whether or not an administrative complaint can be filed against respondent resulting from a private transaction.

HELD: As an employee of the judiciary, the respondent is held to the highest ethical standards to preserve the integrity of the courts. These standards include the moral and legal duty to settle contractual obligations when they become due. The respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions, although arising from a private transaction, stained the image of her public office. The respondent is expected to be a model of fairness and honesty and not only in all her official conduct but also in her personal actuations, involving business and commercial transactions. The respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s act of blocking of the ATM card she surrendered to her creditors and her act of securing a new ATM card from the LBP to avoid payment of her indebtedness constitute dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. Also, her failure to comply with the Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s directives constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination. Thus, the Court finds the Page | 70

respondent separately liable for three administrative offenses of willful failure to pay just debts, gross misconduct and insubordination, and dishonesty.

Page | 71

Disguise PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR G.R. No. 196735, May 05, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstanc (Disguise) Facts: On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries. Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, Dennis Venturina, Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng, and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 p.m., they were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City when the event took place. Other testimonies concluded some were wearing masks, others not, other masks fell off during the attacks hence some were identified, others not. Issue: Whether or not the wearing of masks and the circumstance of them falling off during the attack is a valid aggravating circumstance. Page | 72

Held: The testimonial evidence proved that the accused were masked but the masksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; falling off does not prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently appraise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with as they tried to conceal their identity.

Page | 73

Abuse of Superior strength PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERWIN TAMAYO y BAUTISTA G.R. No. 196960 March 12, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Superior strength) Facts: A group of four men (including Joey Obamen) were drinking beside the Iglesia ni Cristo chapel in Tondo, Manila when Erwin Tamayo and John del Rosario, along with several companions, also having a drink, threw empty gin bottles at them. In retaliation, Joey and his group threw stones at the group of Erwin. Erwin and his group then chased Joey and his group. Joey then tripped on the chain guarding the parking lot of the chapel, and fell to the ground. Erwin and his companions attacked, mauled, and stabbed Joey. Joey died of traumatic head injuries and stab wounds on the abdomen. Issue: Is Erwin liable for the felony? Was the felony aggravated by the accused taking advantage of his superior strength? Ruling: Yes. Even if it could not be ascertained that it was Erwin who inflicted the fatal blow, his liability will not be diminished since they all acted in conspiracy, making them liable as co-principals by direct participation. According to the court, there is no question that Erwin and his group took advantage of their superior strength when they (about 15

Page | 74

men) ganged up Joey, who tripped and fell to the ground, hit him on the head, and stabbed him to death. PEOPLE VS MANOLITO LUCENA Y. VELASQUEZ GR NO 190632 FEBRUARY 26 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Abuse of Superior Strength and Public position) Facts: On 28 April 2003, at around 11:30 p.m., while AAA, who was then 17 years old, was walking and chatting with her friends along one of the streets of San Dionisio, Parañaque City, two barangay tanods, approached and informed them that they were being arrested for violating a city ordinance imposing curfew against minors. AAA’s companions managed to escape and she was then ordered by the barangay tanods to board the tricycle, brought by the two barangay tanods to San Dionisio Barangay Hall. The appellant told the other tanod that he will just be the one to bring AAA back to her house. But appellant brought her to Kabuboy Bridge in San Dionisio, Parañaque City. The appellant threatened that he would kill her once she resists. He then took out the backseat of the tricycle and positioned it in a grassy area and subsequently pointed a gun at her and commanded her to lie down and to take off her clothes. The appellant later put the gun down on the ground and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina despite the latter’s plea not to rape her. After five minutes the he again inserted his penis into her vagina. The third time, he inserted again his penis into her vagina. Fulfilling his bestial desire, he stopped and finally ordered AAA to dress up. The appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her should she tell anyone about what happened between them. He then brought AAA in Page | 75

front of a school in Para単aque City. Medical exam by Dr. Tan shows evidence of lacerations in the hymen, vagina and perianal skin indicative of abuse. This was done the day after the incident when the victim mustered enough courage to report what happened to the barangay kagawad. The appellant denied the allegations at first then afterward appellant attested that the victim did not resist physically. Issue: Whether or not the issuance of exemplary damages and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death by the courts are valid when the use of a gun was included as an aggravating circumstance. Held: The court held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape with use of a gun as an aggravating circumstance: (1) the exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, for each count of rape, is awarded in favor of AAA; and (2) the appellant is ordered to pay AAA the interest on all damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.

Page | 76

People of the Philippines v. Sonny Gatarin y Caballero G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Abuse of Superior Strength) Facts: A witness saw Januario Castillo being mauled by two persons. He stayed around until accused ran away and were chased by policemen. On same night, two policemen were patrolling when they met two men, later identified as accused, running fast. They chased them but were unsuccessful. They then saw victim lying on the street, severely injured. On their way to the hospital, they asked victim who hurt him and he said it was â&#x20AC;&#x153;Jay-R and his uncle (respondent)â&#x20AC;? who stabbed him. He obtained fatal wounds causing his death. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength which attended the commission of the crime? HELD: The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength were attendant. Two assailants younger than the victim, armed with a bladed weapon and inflicting multiple mortal wounds on the victim, was definitely abuse of superior strength deliberately taken advantage of by appellant and his co-accused. The circumstance is considered when there is a notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor, which the latter selected or took advantage of in the commission of the crime. Records show that victim was fifty-four (54) years old while appellant was forty (40) years old.

Page | 77

People of the Philippines v. Erwin Lalog, et. al G.R. No. 196753, April 21, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Abuse of Superior Strength) FACTS: Four men strolling at the Park were blocked by four other persons (group of accused). The accused, angrily talked to Gain but his friend Mercado intervened and apologized. Later, Mercado walking ahead of Gain, looked back and saw him being ganged up by the group of accused. Fearing for his life, he fled but returned after accused left. Brought the victim to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Accused admitted stabbing victim on self-defense while his three companions denied involvement. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and qualifying circumstance of treachery? HELD: There was a qualifying circumstance of treachery, while aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Self-defense did not persuade SC. To avail of this as justifying circumstance, it must be proved with certainty by evidence by the one invoking it. Appellants attacked Gain in treacherously when they held Gainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arms, immobilized him and thrust the knife into his body several times. The number of wounds sustained even more negated the claim of self-defense; rather, it was indicative of appellantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intent to kill. Page | 78

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS, JIMMY DELIZO AND MERWIN LAS PIÑAS G.R. No. 191723 July 23, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength) FACTS: The public prosecutor charged Renato, Rolando, Armando, Gilberto, Merwin, Freddie, Salvador, all surnamed Las Pifias, and Jimmy Delizo counts of murder. On 2:00 in the morning of May 2, 2001, at the fishpen in the Municipality of Castilla, Sorsogon, the accused, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, armed with guns, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, attacked, assaulted and shot [EDGARDO ARINGO (Criminal Case No. 2001-5446), BENJAMIN ARINGO (Criminal Case No. 2001-5447), CARLITO LASALA (Criminal Case No. 2001-5448) ] inflicting upon the latter mortal injuries on the causing death, to the damage and prejudice of legal heirs.Of the eight accused, only Rolando Las Piñas, Merwin Las Piñas, and Jimmy Delizo were apprehended and held for trial. The rest remained at large.RTC found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder committed in conspiracy with each other. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of RTC.

Page | 79

ISSUE: Whether the legal heirs of each victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages, considering the presence of aggravating circumstances. HELD: Yes. The Court notes, that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals overlooked the award of exemplary damages. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.To emphasize, the victims, Edgardo, Benjamin and Carlito, were caught off guard when the accused, including the accused-appellants, in the dead of night, arrived at the fishpen and climbed the same, and without warning, opened fire at the sleeping/resting victims to disable them. Upon disabling the victims, the accused and the accused-appellants continued shooting at the victims – accused Armando and accused-appellant Rolando shot Edgardo and Carlito; accused-appellants Jimmy and Merwin and accused Freddie shot Benjamin. Accused Armando even slashed Edgardo’s throat after shooting him and threw his body out to the sea – the stealth, swiftness and methodical manner by which the attack was carried out gave the four victims no chance at all to evade the bullets and defend themselves from the unexpected onslaught. Thus, there is no denying that the collective acts Page | 80

of the accused and the accused-appellants reek of treachery.In Criminal Case Nos. 2001-5446 to 5448 (for three counts of Murder), the RTC awarded in each case the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages to the victimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; heirs. But to conform to recent jurisprudence, the foregoing awards must be raised as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and another P75,000.00 as moral damages. Conformably with the above, the legal heirs of each victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.

Page | 81

People of the Philippines v. Romeo Closa y Lualhati G. R. No. 211049, August 6, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Advantage be taken of superior strength)

Facts: Accused-appellant Romeo Closa y Lualhati was charged with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape of his 10-year old daughter. The first count was in year 2006 where he took advantage of the tender age of the complainant and his moral ascendancy over her, he being her father, a relative within the first degree and living with him in the same house, against her will and without her consent, had carnal knowledge of her. The second count was in the evening of October 26, 2009 where complainant was already 13-years old; there the accused-appellant feloniously had carnal knowledge of the former which resulted to her pregnancy. The last incident occurred in the morning of November 4, 2009 while complainant’s mother was away on a visit. The accusedappellant ordered her to lie down on the bed, removed her undergarments, opened her legs and was about to insert his penis inside her when the dog suddenly barked. Startled, the accused-appellant desisted, got up and left. The complainant’s mother returned and saw her crying, and the complainant told her mother what happened. When arraigned on November 11, 2009, the accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty”. Trial followed, and complainant testified.

Page | 82

ISSUE: Whether or not the complainantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s testimony was sufficient evidence for the prosecution to prove accusedappellant as guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Hence, this court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape of his minor daughter, with the aggravating circumstance of minority and relationship.

Page | 83

Treachery PEOPLE VS. WILFREDO GUDA ALIAS “FRED” GR NO. 195525 FEBRUARY 5 2015 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery) Facts: At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 25, 1997, the victim, Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son, Eladio Jr., were walking along a trail at Sitio Candulungon, Barangay Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern Samar. Suddenly, when Eladio Jr. was about 10 meters ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid by appellant and his unidentified companions. The John Does held the victim’s arms whereupon appellant stabbed him several times. Fearing for his life, Eladio Jr. fled. The unidentified assailants pursued him. Fortunately, he was able to outrun them and was able to reach their house. In the morning of the following day, Eladio Jr. went to the house of his sister and informed her of the death of their father. They then reported the incident to the police authorities who eventually arrested the appellant. The body of the victim was recovered and post– mortem examinations revealed that he suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death. Aside from Eladio Jr., Teofilo Ambal, Jr. (Ambal) who is a brother–in–law of the appellant, also witnessed the crime. In the afternoon of May 25, 1997, while Ambal was at his farm gathering feeds for his pigs, he saw appellant who was armed with a wooden pole position himself at the back of the victim and strike the latter’s head with the wood. The companions of appellant then held the victim’s arms whereupon appellant drew a bolo locally known Page | 84

as depang from his waist and stabbed the victim several times. Ambal left the crime scene. He denied the charge against him. He claimed that in the afternoon of May 25, 1997, he was at Barangay Camada gathering and cleaning rattan poles. Issue: Whether or not the presence of treachery was valid as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in this case and not a generic aggravating circumstance Held: Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty. Since treachery qualified the commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no longer be appreciated anew as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Furthermore, although there was conspiracy in this case, it is neither a qualifying circumstance [nor] a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.

Page | 85

People of the Philippines v. Francisco Abaigar G.R. No. 199442, April 7, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery, Nighttime) Facts: Accused shot victim with a shotgun causing his death. Witness saw appellant shot Gabuya from behind hitting back of his head while opening the front door of his house. Appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s claim was that he returned to sleep after hearing gunshots near his house and denied knowing the death of victim, whose house is 30 arms-length away. ISSUE(S): Whether or not treachery attended the commission the crime of murder? Did the lower courts err in lending credence to the testimony of the eye witness considering the poor lighting condition of the place? HELD: Yes. Treachery attended the commission of the crime. The victim was about to enter his house when he was shot from behind by the appellant. Considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellant was correctly found guilty of murder; there being no aggravating circumstance other than treachery, lower courts correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. However, he is not eligible for parole.

Page | 86

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJIE CONSORTE y FRANCO G.R. No. 194068 July 9, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery) FACTS: Elizabeth Palmar filed a robbery case against the appellant who was her former conductor of her jeepney. Elizabeth got murdered the night before the initial hearing of the case.Rolando Visbe was driving the jeep with Elizabeth and her daughter, and three-year old nephew to deliver feeds to piggery. On their way back, he saw the appellant so he slowed down the jeep to ask where he was going. Appellant did not reply. Rolando veered to the right to avoid hitting appellant. In the process, the jeepney ran over a stone, lost its balance, and rolled into a ditch. While struggling to release the vehicle, Rolando heard a gunshot. He looked around and saw appellant near the jeepney’s left rear, holding a gun. Right before the incident, around 8:45 pm while on her way home, Aneline Mendoza saw appellant holding something in his hand wrapped in a black cloth, which looked like a gun. Immediately after Aneline entered her house, she heard a gunshot and when she peeped through the window, she saw appellant standing by the side of the jeepney where Elizabeth’s lifeless body was sprawled. Shortly after, Aneline saw appellant running towards the direction of Elizabeth’s house.

Page | 87

ISSUE: Whether or not circumstance of treachery.

there

aggravating

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and court of appeals.According to RTC, in the case at bar, [appellant] took advantage of the situation when he shot the unsuspecting victim. The unexpected attack on the victim rendered her unable and unprepared to defend herself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. The facts of this case show that the victim had her back to her assailant when attacked, and she was not aware of any danger on her part. She was likewise cuddling a baby in her lap when the shot was fired. Clearly, she was in no position to make any defense.The eyewitness testimony likewise sufficiently established that [appellant] consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack. Accused was armed and stealthily performed the criminal act at nighttime at an unexpected time while the victim was defenseless. Add to this scenario the fact that on January 23, 2005, the [appellant] and the victim will meet at the Municipal Trial Court hearing for the robbery case filed by the victim. This only shows that the [appellant] took into consideration these factors, hence he was bent on committing the crime on the day prior to the robbery hearing. [Appellant] therefore has set

Page | 88

the time frame within when to commit the crime, and on the said day he did not resist in perpetrating the crime.

MIGUEL CIRERA y USTELO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 181843 July 14, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery) FACTS: According to the prosecution, Romeo Austria testified that at around 8:30 a.m. on April 20, 2000, he was playing a lucky nine game at a wake when Miguel arrived, asking money from him so he could buy liquor. Austria asked Miguel "to keep quiet." Gerardo Naval arrived and asked Austria to go home. There was an exchange of words between Naval and Miguel. Austria stood up and felt that he was stabbed. As he ran home, he noticed Miguel armed with a knife, chased Naval. When Naval saw that Miguel was about to stab him again, he hit Miguel with a bench and left him lying on the ground. According to Naval, he did not see the knife land on his back. Version of the Defense: Miguel testified that he saw private complainants at a wake. Naval tapped his back and asked, "Anong problema mo?" to which he answered, "Wala naman." Thereafter, Naval punched Miguel. As he was about to stand up, he was hit by a hard objecton his head, causing him to lose consciousness. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of frustrated murder.The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial Page | 89

court that there was treachery in this case because"the attack was so sudden and unexpected" that "self-defense was not possible." ISSUE: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance of treachery. HELD: No. Treachery, as a qualifying circumstance to sustain a conviction of frustrated murder rather than frustrated homicide, was not proven by the prosecution.A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on "clear and convincing evidence." Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. Its existence "cannot be presumed." The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was intended to kill another as long as the victimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position was merely accidental. In this case, no evidence was presented to show that petitioner consciously adopted or reflected on the means, method, or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage.The attack might "have been done on impulse or as a reaction to an actual or imagined provocation offered by the victim." It is, therefore, an error for both the trial and appellate courts not to have considered the evidence that the offended parties were able to flee and retaliate. Upon proof of evasion and retaliation, courts must evaluate the evidence further to ensure whether there can be reasonable doubt for this qualifying circumstance to exist. This is only in keeping with the presumption of innocence of the accused.

Page | 90

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.JOJO SUMILHIG, RICARDO SUMILHIG alias CARDING SUMILHIG, PASOT SALOLI, ERIC ENOC, WARLITO MONTEBON, and CIO LIMAMA G.R. No. 178115 July 28, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Treachery) FACTS: On October 31, 1998, at around 6:30 p.m., Jerry Masaglang, together with Eugenio Santander and his son Mario, were in the living room of Eugenioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house. Suddenly, they heard gun bursts and saw six persons firing at the kitchen where members of the Santander family were having dinner. Jerry and Mario recognized the assailants to be the appellants and their co-accused. Before the gunmen dispersed, Jojo shouted, "At last, I have retaliated!" In the aftermath, two of the children of Eugenioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other son Remegio, died from gunshot wounds. Jojo denied involvement in the incident and interposed the defense of alibi. At the time of the incident, he claimed to be in the house of his parents-in-law. He further asserted that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime since he could not walk briskly due to a gunshot wound he earlier sustained in his left knee and anus. He maintained that it was only in January 1999 that he was able to walk without the aid of crutches. However, Jojo admitted harboring illwill against the Santander clan since he believed that they were the ones responsible for the massacre of his family in February 1998.Carding, for his part, claimed to be illiterate and unaware of the incident. He contended that at the time of the shooting, he was in Dalmandang, Tacub, Page | 91

Kiblawan, Davao del Sur, which is four-hours walk away from the crime scene. Pasot, on the other hand, maintained that he was with his wife at the house of Pablo Mot in Lampara, Balasiao, Kiblawan, Davao at the time the crime was committed. Both claimed total ignoranceof the incident.The RTC convicted the appellants of the complex crime of double murder and double frustrated murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death.The CA found merit in appellantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; argument that the crime committed could not have been a complex crime since the death and injuries complained of did not result from a single act but from several and distinct acts of shooting. And as treachery was alleged in the Amended Information and sufficiently proven during trial, appellants should be convicted instead of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder. The CA sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower of the two penalties which is reclusion perpetua was properly imposed. HELD: Yes. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With both penalties being indivisible and there being no aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the lower of the two penalties which is reclusion perpetua was properly imposed by the CA on appellants for each count of murder.

Page | 92

Evident Premeditation People of the Philippines v. VirgilioAmora y Viscarra G. R. No. 190322, November 26, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Evident Premeditation, Treachery/ Alevosia)

Facts: On September 12, 2004, in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, the accused aimed with a deadly weapon and with intent to kill one Romeo Gibaga, with treachery and evident premeditation, assault and stab the latter by hitting him on the trunk, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound(s) which directly caused his death. On November 30, 2004, the appellant was charged with murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Upon arraignment on January 18, 2006, appellant entered into a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, the pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder despite the prosecutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.And, granting arguendo that the accused-appellant is criminally liable, Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Page | 93

HELD: The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and utmost respect given that trial courts have firsthand observation of the witnesses’ demeanor while testifying in court. We shall not supplant our own interpretation of the witnesses’ testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility of witnesses. Moreover, in the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, and especially when the CA, as in this case, has affirmed the findings of the trial judge, the assessments and conclusions of the trial court shall not be overturned. Also, the appellant’s sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was employed in the commission of the crime. The eyewitnesses were all consistent in declaring that the latter had no opportunity to defend himself or to fight back. The deliberate swiftness of the attack significantly diminished the risk to himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the victim. Records show that appellant came from behind and then attacked Romeo from the front. In any event, “even frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it,” as in this case.

Page | 94

Mental deficiency People vs Ventura March 12 2014 GR No 205230 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Mental deficiency of rape victim) Facts: On March 24, 2005, at about 2:00 PM, Ventura was seen naked from the waist down and was on top of a woman, AAA, an succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. AAA was then 17 years old, unschooled, and had a mental disorder. Ventura had knowledge that AAA was suffering from dementia. AAA confessed that she was habitually abused by Ventura and was impregnated by him. Issue: Is the special qualifying circumstance of Ventura’s knowledge of AAA’s mental deficiency applicable in this case? Ruling: Yes. Knowledge of the victim’s mental deficiency would aggravate the felony convicted, as provided for under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code. However, due to the prohibition against death penalty provided for under Section 2 of RA 9346, the court sentenced Ventura with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Page | 95

People v Obogne GR No. 199740 March 24, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Mental disability of rape victim) Facts: Obogne was charged with rape. The Information alleged, “… the accused by means of force, and intimidation willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously x x x succeeded in having carnal knowledge of “AAA,” a 12year old mentally retarded person, to the damage and prejudice of the said “AAA.”” Issue: Should the rape committed be qualified by the victim’s mental disability? Ruling: No. The mental disability could not be considered a qualifying circumstance because it was not alleged in the Information that Obogne knew of the mental condition when he committed the rape, as required in Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hence, Obogne was convicted of simple rape.

Page | 96

Relationship PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO BARAGA y ARCILLA G.R. No. 208761 June 4, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstances (Relationship) FACTS: Rolando Baraga was charged with three counts of acts of lasciviousness and two counts of rape, as amended, committed upon the person of his daughter, AAA, who was then still a minor. The RTC found Baraga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of acts of lasciviousness and two counts of rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disquisition albeit with a modification on the penalty imposed. As regards the charge of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-0685, inasmuch as AAA was already 12 years old when the acts alleged were committed, the CA, applying Article 336 of the RPC, imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum. On the charge of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-0864, since AAA was merely 11 years old at the time, the CA applied Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and meted the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. On appeal, Baraga maintains that the RTC erred in convicting him since the prosecution failed to prove his guilt of the crimes charged. Page | 97

ISSUE: Whether or not the the Court of Appeals erred in imposing penalty in Criminal Case No. 07-0685. HELD: Yes. In Criminal Case No. 07-0685, the Court finds that the CA erred in applying the provisions of Article 336 of the RPC. The CA applied Article 336 of the RPC on the sole ground that AAA was already 12 years old at the time. It bears stressing that the Information in Criminal Case No. 070685 specifically charged Baraga for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Thus, the CA should have applied the provisions of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and imposed upon Baraga the prescribed penalty therein for sexual abuse.The penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12 years old under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua The Court likewise considers the alternative circumstance of relationship against Baraga as an aggravating circumstance. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610 expressly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia, the parent of the victim. Page | 98

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CARLOS ALHAMBRA y MASING G.R. No. 207774 June 30, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstances (Relationship) FACTS: In the Criminal Case No. 347-04, one of the three criminal charges against Carlos Alhambra, he was charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness against her daughter [AAA], a minor 17 years old. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in of the crime of sexual abuse, defined and penalized under Sec. 5 (b), R.A. 7610 and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of thirteen(13) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen [16] years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay a fine of P15,000.00 and to indemnify private complainant [AAA] in the amount of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, [P]15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages. The CA held that Alhambraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s claim that AAA is neither a child exploited in prostitution nor a child subjected to other sexual abuse is untenable. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision in Criminal Case No. 347-04, dated February 2, Page | 99

2011, which found Alhambra guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. HELD: Yes. The lower courts failed to consider the alternative circumstance of relationship against Alhambra as an aggravating circumstance; that Alhambra is the father of AAA was sufficiently established. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. The Court deems it proper to modify the penalty imposed upon Alhambra in Criminal Case No. 347-04. Under Section 5(b), Article III, of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12 years old under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

Page | 100

People of the Philippines v. Roy San Gaspar G.R. NO. 180496, April 2, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (None) Facts: Victim (wife of accused) and her children were sleeping when accused arrived from a funeral, pounding the front door. He got mad as nobody immediately opened the door and got even furious when he saw wife sleeping with her children. Accused kicked her on the leg which caused a heated altercation. Appellant got a .12 gauge shotgun, loaded it and lit a kerosene lamp which he placed near the door. He aimed the gun at his wife and in front of the children, shot Imelda on the head. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the defense he interposed? Was there any aggravating circumstance? HELD: No. Appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defense of accident deserves no credence. A .12 gauge shotgun will not go off unless it is loaded, cocked, and its trigger squeezed. Appellantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s allegation is nothing but a self-serving statement without credibility. There is nothing nearer to the truth than the testimony of the attending physician who examined victim. The RTC and the CA correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is the lower of the two indivisible penalties, due to the absence of any aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.

Page | 101

People of the Philippines v. Rodrigo Gutierez y Robles alias “Rod and John Lennon” G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (None) Facts: AAA, a 10-years old Grade 2 student, went home from school when she met the accused Rodrigo. Accused brought her to his room, removed her panties, and inserted his penis into her vagina then white liquid came out. He gave her five pesos before going back to school. AAA being tardy was asked by her teacher. She admitted that she came from “Uncle Rod” to ask for money. AAA was brought to the principal where her panties were inspected. It was confirmed that AAA was touched as her organ was swelling and her panties wet. A teacher brought her to the hospital and reported the incident to the police. AAA disclosed during trial that accused had done the same to her about 10 times on separate occasions. After each act, he would give her ten or five pesos. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty of statutory rape? Was there any aggravating or qualifying circumstance? HELD: Yes. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Child's consent is immaterial due to presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. SC ruled that testimonies of childvictims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, Page | 102

who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. Article 266-B of the RPC requires that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed in cases of rape stated in the first paragraph of Article 266-A where there are no aggravating or qualifying circumstances present.

Page | 103

People of the Philippines v. Floro Buban Barcela G.R. NO. 208760, April 23, 2014 Re: Aggravating Circumstance (Relationship) FACTS: AAA and BBB lived with stepfather, Floro Barcela in one room. Accused removed AAA’s (7 y.o.) shorts and inserted it into AAA’s vagina and threatened to kill her if she reported. He removed BBB’s (14 y.o.) underwear and inserted his finger inside her vagina. He also threatened to kill her if she told anyone. On same night, AAA was molested by accused. BBB alleged that prior to being raped, he regularly touched her private organ. BBB told her classmate, teacher and school principal and they reported to the police. ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstance of relationship can be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance to increase the imposable penalty? HELD: No. Barcela, is the common-law husband of BBB’s mother, relationship is not considered as ordinary aggravating circumstance. This alternative circumstance is always aggravating in crimes against chastity, but it is only considered under Article 15 of the RPC "when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree." Their relationship is not covered by any of those mentioned. The special qualifying circumstance of minority is not appreciated as AAA was under 12 years old (only 7 y.o.) when raped.

Page | 104