Transcript
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYNALDO BARRIGA BARRIGA G.R. NO. 178545 September 29, 2008 Facts:
On March 10, 1995, appellant Reynaldo Barriga and an old man went to see Helen, the commonlaw wife and fiancee of the victim Eduardo Villabrille, at her house, seemingly to inquire about a lot for sale owned by a certain Miss Rosal. After talking with Miss Rosal, appellant asked Helen for the location of Eduardo's house, to which she answered the first house with co lor yellow. On March 20, 1995, a witness saw appellant going over the fence of her house and peeping through the jalousie window to spy on Eduardo, who was then watching television in her house. On March 23, 1995, Eduardo, riding on his bicycle, proceeded to his mother's house to pasture his cows and water his newly planted mangoes. After a while, Helen heard four successive gunshots coming from the direction of the house of Eduardo's uncle. She hurriedly went out and saw Eduardo being chased by three persons armed with short firearms. Helen recognized one of the pursuers as Leo Barriga (Leo), the brother of appellant, for they used to play together in his house during their school days. She saw Eduardo jump over a fence and fall on the ground. Then Leo approached Eduardo, poked a gun at his head, and fired. She heard Leo tell his companions that Eduardo was already dead. Appellant picked up the three assailants in his motorcycle. Eduardo died the next day. The trial court found appellant guilty of the crime of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court, however, held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not clearly established. But it found that evident premeditation attended the killing of Eduardo. Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident p remeditation, abuse of superior strength, and with the aid of armed men attended the commission of the crime. Held:
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not clearly established since none of the witnesses saw how the shooting was started. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed. Abus Abusee of supe superi rior or stre streng ngth th cann cannot ot like likewi wise se be appr apprec ecia iate ted d for for it was was not alle alleged ged in the the
information. Even if alleged, it cannot qualify the killing of Eduardo. This aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, gender, the physical size and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that assailants utilized any notorious inequality to their advantage. In other words, mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. However, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of the commission of the crime with the aid of armed men. The information alleged that the accused were armed with short firearms. There is ample evidence on record establishing the presence of this circumstance. Under paragraph 1, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the aid of armed men qualifies a killing to murder. Since treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the qualifying circumstance of killing with the aid of armed men could not be absorbed in treachery. Judgment is affirmed with modifications.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NOEL CUASAY G.R. NO. 182548 October 17, 2008 Facts:
On October 15, 1997, the victim Eduardo Ansuli and three other persons were playing mahjong at the wake of a certain Rosalina Petalpo. Barangay tanod s were also present at the wake, about three meters from the mahjong table. At the table, accused-appellant Noel Cuasay and a certain Johnson Suarez were seated at the right side of Ansuli, watching the game. While Ansuli was picking a mahjong tile, accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Ansuli with a Swiss-type knife, hitting the latter on the right breast. Accused-appellant thereafter fled towards the residence of the barangay captain while Ansuli ran to his house. Around 6:00 a.m. of the following day, Ansuli's dead body was found by the side of the road, approximately 50 meters from the location of the wake. In the same morning, the barangay captain surrendered accused-appellant to the authorities. Accused-appellant claimed killing Ansuli in self-defense. He alleged that the victim suspected him of stealing PhP 20 and because of that, the victim boxed him three times. The victim allegedly verbally abused him. Accused-appellant claimed that the victim called him patay gutom at pulubi and boxed him at the right shoulder. Thus, he stabbed the victim with his fan knife then ran to the house of the barangay captain. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification.
Issue:
Whether accused-appellant should be acquitted based on self-defense, or convicted for homicide only because of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation that resulted in incomplete self-defense. Held:
Accused-appellant failed to prove the requisites of self-defense. He failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Accused-appellant's alternative claim of passion or obfuscation likewise deserves no credit. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. There was no evidence of unlawful aggression or any act on the part of the victim that could have caused accused-appellant to act with passion or obfuscation. Judgment is affirmed with modification.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE G.R. NO. 172697 June 7, 2007 Facts:
In the morning of November 20, 1999, appellant, Leoson dela Cruz, gained entry to the subdivision where the victims, Atty. Pelagio Ricalde and his wife Juliana, lived by presenting to the guard-on-duty a fake I.D. Upon reaching the house of Pelagio, appellant told Rebecca, Pelagio's daughter, that her father had told him to go there. After a brief conversation, Pelagio escorted dela Cruz out toward the garage gate. However, the latter suddenly stabbed him in the back and kept on stabbing him until he lost his balance. Juliana rushed to her husband's rescue and begged the appellant, "Leo, tama na, tama na, tama na." Dela Cruz dropped the knife and ran towards the garage. As Juliana was attending to her husband, dela Cruz suddenly reappeared and stabbed her repeatedly at the back with a letter opener. Juliana died as a result of the injuries she suffered. Pelagio survived the stabbing after receiving prompt medical attention. The trial court found appellant guilty of murder an d frustrated murder. The CA affirmed the decision with modifcation. Issue:
Whether or not treachery, evident premeditation and dwelling attended the commission of the crimes.
Held:
Treachery is present because the suddenness of appellant's attack on the victims ensured the commission of the crimes, giving them no opportunity to defend themselves. At the time of the attack, Pelagio was talking with appellant on the way out. Pelagio did not have the slightest idea he was going to be stabbed and had no chance to defend himself. In Juliana's case, she was by her fallen husband when appellant reappeared with a letter opener. The attack on her was instantaneous, and Juliana was not ready to fight back thinking appellant had left. As to the presence of evident premeditation, only the attack on Pelagio was evidently premeditated. The same cannot be said on the assault on Juliana. To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to such determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his act. The Court stresses the importance of the requirement in evident premeditation of sufficiency of time between the criminal act and the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, affording such opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what appellant had planned to do, an interval long enough for the conscience and better judgment to overcome the evil desire and scheme. Finally, dwelling aggravated the commission of the crimes. Appellant's greater perversity was revealed when he deliberately entered the victims' domicile, at the pretext of soliciting help from its owners. The garage, where the incidents took place, is undoubtedly an integral part of the victims residence. Judgment is affirmed.
ERNESTO GARCES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 173858 July 17, 2007 Facts:
AAA was on her way to the chapel when the petitioner, Ernesto Garces, and four of his coaccused suddenly appeared and approached her. Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed. He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood guard outside. Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing AAA. She fought back but to no avail. Thereafter, Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After a while, they heard people shouting and calling the name of AAA. At this point, petitioner Ernesto Garces entered the barn, covered AAAs mouth, then dragged her outside. He also threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.
Upon reaching the house of Florentino Garces, petitioner released AAA. Shortly thereafter, AAA's relatives found her crying and her hair disheveled. They brought her home. When asked what happened, AAA could not answer because she was in a state of shock. After a while, she was able to recount the incident. Rosendo Pacursa denied that he raped the victim, while his co-accused presented alibis as their defense. The trial court found Pacursa guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape while petitioner Garces was found guilty as an accessory to the crime. The other co-accused were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification. Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of night-time and uninhabited place attended the commission of the crime.
Held:
Nocturnity is aggravating when it is deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure his unmolested escape. The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at night, there is no other evidence that the peculiar advantage of nighttime was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused. The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot likewise be appreciated in the absence of evidence that the accused actually sought an isolated place to better execute their purpose. The records do not show that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. Petition denied.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO G.R. NO. 173248 November 3, 2008 Facts:
In the evening of December 29, 2000, the victim, Virgilio Revollido, Jr., was seen by a witness being chased by an unidentified person ( John Doe) along 4th Avenue East, Caloocan City. The victim passed in front of the appellant, Dante Nueva, and Porpirio Maribuhok who were then standing near the corner of 4th Avenue. At that point, the appellant held the victim's left hand and led him to the other side of the road. There, Porpirio took a piece of wood and hit the victim on the head. The appellant continued to box the victim until John Doe came. John Doe immediately stabbed the victim at the back. The appellant, who was then at the victim's front, then pulled out a knife and likewise stabbed the victim. Afterwards, the three accused escaped.
The victim died subsequently. Of the three accused, only the appellant was apprehended; the others remained at large. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and taking advantage of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. Held:
A review of the evidence points to the conclusion that no treachery existed. Treachery is not presumed. The circumstances surrounding the murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of execution. Abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim. To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force, or force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor so that the superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this superiority in committing the crime. Evident premeditation was not proven. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect on the consequences of his act. Judgment is affirmed with modifications.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CESARIO OSIANAS, ET AL. G.R. NO. 182548 September 30, 2008 Facts:
On October 20, 1989, at around 6:00 p.m., in Sitio Calapayan, Barangay San Rafael, Hinoba-an, Negros Occidental, Jose Cuizon, his son Ronilo Cuizon, and his brother Raymundo Cuizon were
sleeping in the house of Jose's daughter, Teresita Cuizon-Cuerpo, who was also asleep with her two children. Suddenly, there was a loud knocking on the door and shouts calling for Jose to rise and come out. When asked, the persons knocking at the door said they were members of the New Peoples Army and that they will burn the house down if the door was not opened. Jose opened the door. Teresita then saw accused-appellants, together with the other seven accused who were all armed with improvised shotguns, short firearms, knives, and double-bladed weapons. They barged in, hog-tied the hands of Jose, Ronilo and Raymundo and brought them out of the house allegedly for questioning. The next day, October 21, 1989, the dead bodies of Jose, Ronilo and Raymundo were found in Sitio Sangke, Talacagay, around two kilometers away from Barangay Hinoba-an. The trial court convicted the accused-appellants, Cesario Osianas, et al. of the crime of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications. Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. Held:
There is no question that the victims bodies, when found, had their hands still tied shows without doubt that they were killed when they were tied, so that, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present. The other qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, cannot be appreciated in the case at bar. The following elements must be established in order that evident premeditation may be appreciated: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. It was not shown that the accused-appellants meditated and reflected upon their decision to kill the victim. The premeditation to kill must be plain, notorious and sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. As regards the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, this Court has held that such is already absorbed in treachery, and therefore cannot be separately considered. Judgment is affirmed with modification.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO RODAS, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 75881 August 28, 2007 Facts:
On August 9, 1996, the victim Titing Asenda was at Milaub, Denoyan, Zamboanga del Norte, to help his brother, Danilo Asenda, in the harvesting of the latter's corn. On the same day, at around 8:00 in the evening, a benefit dance at Milaub was being held. Among those roaming in the vicinity of the dance hall were Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot. They stopped and hung out near the fence to watch the affair. Titing Asenda was standing near them. They saw Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Jr., and Jose Rodas, Sr. surround Titing Asenda. Suddenly, without a word, Charlito Rodas, armed with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape. Thereafter, Jose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing. Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas prevented them by pointing a gun at them. Titing died instantly from his injuries. The lower court convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Issue:
Whether evident premeditation, nocturnity and abuse of superior strength attended the killing.
Held:
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the c riminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered against appellants. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the o bscurity afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. There was glaring disparity of strength between the victim and the four accused. The victim was unarmed while the accused were armed with a hunting knife, chako and bolo. It is evident that the accused took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense. This aggravating
circumstance, though, cannot be separately appreciated because it is absorbed in treachery. Judgment is affirmed with modification.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RENE ROSAS G.R. NO. 177825 October 24, 2008 Facts:
On September 15, 1995, appellant, Rene Rosas, was allegedly standing beside the post near a store across the street. Thereafter, the victim, Nestor Estacio, arrived alone on board his motorcycle. The victim stopped in front of the Salcedo Newsstand to buy a newspaper without switching off his motorcycles engine. Before he could drive off, appellant, who was coming from the left side behind the victim, shot the latter with a pistol at close range. After the victim fell on the ground, more gunshots were heard, which gunshots were fired at the victim to make sure that he was dead. After the shooting, appellant jumped into a motorcycle and escaped. On August 5, 1998, appellant was arrested. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. Issue:
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated when it is not alleged with specificity in the Information. Held:
Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the words qualifying or qualified by that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. It is sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during trial. Not only was treachery sufficiently alleged, it was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. It is a well-entrenched rule that treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected attack, affording the
hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Judgment is affirmed.
PEOPLE vs. REYNALDO VILLANUEVA Y MARQUEZ G.R. NO. 172697 September 25, 2007 Facts:
In the morning of January 21, 2000, appellant, Reynaldo Villanueva, then 31 years old, killed his niece Angelica Villanueva, aged 8, by boxing her on the head and kicking her several times on the different parts of her body. Appellant also mauled his nephews Rexie Villanueva and Enrique Villanueva, Jr., aged 5 and 2, respectively. Angelica died of massive brain edema, cerebral contusion, subdural hemorrhage due to mauling. Rexie sustained injuries, which could have resulted to massive brain edema and his subsequent death, were it not for the medical intervention. Enrique, Jr. suffered a broken mouth and was confined at the Baguio General Hospital (BGH) for four days. Consequently, appellant was charged with murder for the death of Angelica, frustrated murder for the serious injuries suffered by Rexie, and attempted murder for the injuries inflicted on Enrique, Jr. Appellant pleaded insanity. He claimed that he did not know that he killed his niece Angelica and that he mauled his nephews Rexie and Enrique, Jr. A doctor testified that appellant is suffering from a mental disorder classified as schizophrenia, paranoid, episodic with interepisode residual symptoms characterized by intermittent episodes of psychotic signs and symptoms. The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder, which the Court of Appe als affirmed with modification. Issue:
Whether appellant should be acquitted on the ground of insanity. Held:
The defense failed to prove that appellant was completely deprived of intelligence in committing the dastardly acts. Proof of the existence of some abnormalities in the mental faculties will not exempt the accused from culpability, if it was shown that he was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. Appellant's recollection of the events prior to the crimes and his emotions afterwards indicate that he was sane before, during, and after the commission of the crimes. The CA correctly appreciated appellant's mental disorder as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. The re is no dispute that appellant has a history of
mental illness. He was diagnosed to be suffering from Schizophrenia, Paranoid, Episodic with Interepisode Residual Symptoms which began in 1985 and was characterized by intermittent episodes of psychotic signs and symptoms since then until appellant's exa mination on June 21, 2000. Such illness diminished the exercise of appellant's will power without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. Judgment affirmed with modifications.
