PEOPLE V.

LEGASPI
                                               G.R. Nos. 136164-65, 20 April 2001 
 
FACTS: On February 17, 1997, Edgar Legaspi was charged with the crimes of rape and robbery
filed with the Regional Trial Court. At around 2:00 in the morning of February 11, 1997,
Honorata saw a man armed with a knife standing by her feet. More terrifying, the man already
had his pants and briefs down on his knees and he was pointing to her eldest daughter. The man
poked his knife at honorata and told her to stand up; she was then made to lie down on the
adjacent sofa. The man raped honorata holding the knife at Honorata’s neck. Honorata noticed
that the man reeked of alcohol. Afterwards, the assailant stood up then asked for money. And,
out of fear a he was still holding the knife, the victim complied
 
ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling cannot be considered in
raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant from reclusion Perpetua to death.
 
HELD: YES.  The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated in the
robbery charge because of (sic) the notion to commit the crime was conceived only shortly
when the rape was committed at darkness. However, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling is a different story and should be considered. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with
violence against or intimidation of person because this class of robbery can be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. Entrance into
the dwelling house of the offended party is not an element of the offense. Thus, the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and dwelling cannot be considered in raising the penalty imposable
upon accused-appellant from reclusion perpetua to death.
 
 People v Capalac
GR No. L38297

Facts: Jimmy Magaso stabbed the brother of Mario Capalac, the accused who was a police
officer. Jimmy was trying to escape when he was confronted by the accused, his other brother
Jesus, and along with two other companions. He having alighted after two shots were fired in
succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his
hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by the accused,
and after having fallen to the ground, was stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus. He died on the
way to the hospital. Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and
treachery. The lower Court also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer.
He was sentenced to death.

Issues: WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position.

Ruling: No, The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by
itself justify the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He
acted like a brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious
assault on his kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in
handy and he acted accordingly. 
 PEOPLE VS. MAGDUENO
GR. L-68699 ; September 22, 1986

FACTS: Accused, along with others, were charged with murder qualified by treachery,
premeditation, contempt to public authorities, and aggravated by price or reward. October 15,
1980, as soon as Fernando Dilig, a city Fiscal of Puerto Princesa placed himself at the driver’s
seat inside his jeep parked near his house, Accused (a gun-for-hire) approached the victim and
said “Fiscal” to verify his identity, he then fired two shots hitting the neck and then lumbar
region of the fiscal, killing him. Three witnesses attested to the crime. Magdueño executed an
extra-judicial confession admitting he killed Fiscal Dilig for a price. 

ISSUE: Whether aggravating circumstances of insult to public authority apply to the crime
committed. 

RULING: No. The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public
authority does not seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be
considered it must not only be shown that the crime was not committed in the presence of
the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority
himself. (U.S. v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150; People v. Rizal, 103 SCRA 282). In the instant case
Fiscal Dilig, the public authority involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court,
erred in including commission of the crime with insult to public authority as an aggravating
circumstance.
 PEOPLE VS. PAGAL
GR. L-32040, October 25, 1977

FACTS: Manila, 1977, Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide.They stole Php 1,281.00 and being accused of conspiracy, treacherously attacked
Gau Guan by using an icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts of his body
causing immediate death. They entered a plea of guilty. Claiming (1) There was sufficient
provocation or threat that made them act upon an impulse to produce passion and obfuscation,
and, (2) confessed guilt in court. Both were sentenced to death despite the mitigating
circumstance but this was contested because it was not established that they acted in conspiracy. 

ISSUE: Whether aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank and age is present.

RULING: No. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken
into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there
is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. 17 lt is not proper to consider this
aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. 18 Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of
the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. 19 The trial court
erred in taking into account this aggravating circumstance.
 People v. Magnaye,
G.R. No. L-3510, 30 May 1951

Facts: Pedro Bele and his family have a small combination house and store in San Andres,
Bondoc, Atimonan, Quezon. The accused bought a cigarette in the said store. When the victim
was about to hand it to the former, accused extended his arm and stabbed the victim. The latter
cried for help. Unfortunately the assailant fled and was not overtaken. Two days after, the victim
died as a result of the wound.

Issue: Whether or not the combination of house and store where the crime was committed can be
considered as dwelling?

Ruling: No. The combination house and store where the crime was committed cannot be
considered as dwelling within the meaning of Article 14 (3 of the Revised Penal Code) and
what is considered as craft by the Solicitor General is included in treachery, which qualifies the
offense of murder in the present case. And although the appellant, to facilitate and ensure the
execution of his evil design, pretended to be purchaser in the store of the deceased, craft may not
be considered as present if it is included in treachery which qualified the offense of murder.
 People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, 14 May 1997

Facts: Capulong filed with the RTC a complaint of the crime of rape against the accused.
Complainant Cristina Capulong y Arocena, 21 years old, single, a 4th year college student of
Araullo University at Cabanatuan City, testified that: On January 6, 1995, at around 3:30 o'clock
in the morning, she was sleeping in her room in a boarding house in Mabini Extension,
Cabanatuan City, when she was suddenly awakened because someone was ransacking her things
near her feet. The man whom she identified in court as the accused, then pointed a knife at her
and motioned to her to keep quiet. The accused, while still holding the knife, raped the
complainant. After, both struggled with the knife. Accused fled thinking that he killed the victim.
 
Issue: Whether aggravating circumstance of dwelling be considered

Ruling: Yes. The crime of rape was committed in the boarding house where the complainant
was staying. Dwelling may be aggravating even if it does not belong to the victim. 17 The
dwelling need not be owned by the victim. The Code speaks of "dwelling", not domicile. 
 People v. Bagsit
G.R. No. 148877
19 August 2003

Facts: On 12 September 1999 at around twenty (20) minutes past eight o'clock in the evening,
prosecution witness Richard Sison and his younger sister Heidi were watching television inside
their house at Bgy. Soro-soro, Ilaya, Batangas City. When Richard looked... out of the window,
he saw a man whom he identified as Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father Pepito Sison
who was then closing the front door of their house. The barrel of the gun held by Angelito
protruded thru their grilled window. Not for long, Richard heard a gunshot... and almost
simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. With the help of his mother Teodora
who came from his grandfather's house next door, Richard rushed his father to the hospital where
he died shortly after.
 
Issues: Whether dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in the case at bar.
 
Ruling: Yes. Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is likewise aggravating. The
triggerman showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim
inside the latter’s own house when he could have very well committed the crime without
necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victim’s home. He who goes to another’s house to
hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. For the
circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense - it is enough that the
victim was attacked inside his own abode, although the assailant might have devised means
to perpetrate the assault from the outside.
 People v. Arojado
G.R. No. 130492
21 January 2001
 
Facts: On June 1, 1996 the accused stabbed one Mary Ann Arrojado with a knife with treachery
and evident premeditation on the different parts of her body inflicting serious and mortal wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of her death. The RTC found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to imprisonment of 30
years of reclusion perpetua. The trial court held that there was circumstantial evidence to convict
accused appellant of the death of the victim. Appellant argued that the victim committed suicide.
He claimed that most of the victim’s wounds were inflicted after she committed suicide to make
it appear that she was murdered. He also stated that he only saw one wound in the victim’s
stomach.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can appreciated and
would elevate the penalty of murder from reclusion perpetua to death

Ruling: Yes. For this aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show that the
confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the
accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. The
condifence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belied that the former would not abuse said
confidence.68 In this case, while the victim may have intimated her fear for her safety for which
reason she entrusted her jewelry and bank book to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo, her fears were
subsequently allayed as shown by the fact that she took back her personal effects from
Erlinda.69 Thinking that accused-appellant would not do her any harm, because he was after all
her first cousin, the victim allowed accused-appellant to sleep in the same room with her father
and left the bedroom doors unlocked
 PEOPLE V. LUCHICO
GR NO. 26170, DECEMBER 6, 1926

Facts: At about 6 o’clock in the evening, the offended party, Inocencia Salva, a girl of 13 years
of age, being in the kitchen of Teodoro Luchico, as a servant was preparing a decoction, her
master approached her. The accused then caught her by the face and imprinted a kiss upon her
left cheek. She tried to file a complaint but was only given medical treatment since Luchico
made it appear that she was out of her mind since she was having a typhoid fever. Luchico was
given a great opportunity to continue his urge to rape the girl and this happened at bout 7 o’clock
at night, and although it was moonlight the place was dark as there was a pathway shaded by
many trees.

Issue: Is aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence applicable?

Held: No. It is essential that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of a
crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence. When the accused raped the offended party she had already lost
confidence in him from the moment that he took the liberty of making an indecent proposal to
her and of offending her with a kiss, which compelled her to arm herself with a penknife; and in
the present case it cannot be said that the fact of the accused being the offended party's master
facilitated the attainment of his lustful purpose.
 PEOPLE V. JAURIGUE
GR NO. CA NO. 387, February 21, 1946

Facts: Amado, the suitor of Avelina grabbed her, kissed her, and touched her chest. To this,
Avelina slapped him, threw fist blows, and kicked him. Avelina told her mother the next day.
Her mother gave her a fan knife for protection. Amado intruded in Avelina’s house while she
was asleep. He kissed her hand which woke her up. She screamed for help, he hid under the bed.
Her parents arrive in the room. He apologized. Days after, Avelina and her family attended
services in the Seventh Day Adventists chapel. Amado saw Avelina, sat beside her and put his
hand on her right thigh. Avelina tried to get her knife with right hand. Amado held her right hand
to stop her. Avelina quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado in the neck.
Amado staggered. Avelina’s father saw Amado bleeding. Her father asked why she did it, she
said she could not endure it anymore. CFI found Avelina guilty of homicide with the aggravating
circumstance of having committed the act in a place of worship, inter alia. Avelina appealed.

Issue: Is the aggravating circumstance offending a place of worship applicable?

Held: No It’s true that the crime occurred in a chapel. However, this does not necessarily denote
the attachment of said AC. As per law, for a proper appreciation of AC of having committed
the crime in a place of worship, there should be premeditation that the offender intended to
do it in the place of worship. As the facts show, Avelina did not plan to kill Amado nor to kill
him in a chapel. Avelina had in her case the fan knife just for protection whenever and wherever
she might need it. It just so happened that Amado provoked her in the chapel and that was where
Avelina could not bear it anymore. With this in mind, the present court ruled that the lower court
erred in assigning the AC in its judgment against Avelina.
 People v. Canoy
G.R. No. L-6037
30 September 1954

Facts: Dioscoro Nacua, a precinct watcher for the 1949 election, died in the polling place on the
day of election due to bullet wounds inflicted by the respondent Adolfo Canoy. As his brother,
Quirino Nacua went to the scene of the occurrence soon thereafter, and began to ascend the stairs
of said building, he was, likewise, fatally riddled by gun fire. 

Those of the prosecution testified that, upon the arrival of Quirino Nacua at the foot of the stairs
of the Napo Elementary School, appellant Norberto Catao, who was near a flagpole, about 30
feet away, pointed his gun at Quirino who, thereupon, raised his arms and begged Norberto not
to shoot, but the latter said "That cannot be, let us wait for Adolfo Canoy." Almost immediately,
Adolfo arrived, wielding a carbine. With his arms still raised, Quirino prayed that his life be
spared, at the same time retreating up the flight of stairs, but Adolfo Canoy, as well as Norberto
Catao and Policarpo Tantano, who were beside him, mowed him down with a volley of shots

Issue: Whether the respondents are subject to Article 14, Section 5 of the RPC

Ruling: Yes, their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The crime was
premeditated and, in a place, where public functions were being performed. There is competent
evidence that the respondents had an agreement with various public officials to kill the Nacua
brothers in exchange for money.
 People v. Santos
G.R. No. L-4189
21 May 1952

Facts: During the late hours of the night, Guillermo de la Cruz and his wife Ester were
awakened by dog barks; then they heard that some men wanted to force the door, but they did
not succeed because it was locked; then two entered the house through the window and opened
the back door where two more entered, all armed.  Guillermo de las Cruz recognized those who
entered, who were Jacinto Santos, Romualdo Reyes, Pablo Asuncion and Alfredo Asuncion,
former acquaintances of his. Following the orders of the assailants, De la Cruz and his wife was
turned upside down. They turned off the light, but used a flashlight to ransack the house. After
tying De la Cruz's hands, they led him downstairs then blindfolded and tied him to a pole in the
house. Again, they went up to the house to rape the wife and then threatening the husband with
killing them if they revealed what had happened.

Issue: Whether the respondents are subject to Article 14, Section 6 of the RPC

Ruling: Yes. Although there are three different aggravating circumstances, the court held that it
is not necessary to decide whether the three circumstance, which were dwelling, crime done in
night time, and crime done with a band, should be considered a single aggravating circumstance
or three separately because the additional concurrence of one, two or three circumstances does
not alter the penalty; it may not exceed the maximum degree of perpetual imprisonment.
 People Vs Berbal
G.R. No. 71527
August 10, 1989

FACTS: 
On December 28, 1982, at 8:00 o’clock in the evening, Cristina Basul, a 58-year old
woman, was stabbed to death at her home at Brgy San Roque, Socorro, Surigao del Norte. She
sustained 25 stab wounds. Living with her at the time were her granddaughter, Dolores 9 yrs old
and her 2 grandsons, Arnel, a grade 1 student and Dondon, who was even younger than Arnel.
Only Dolores witnessed the stabbing incident.

ISSUE: W/N the crime was aggravated by nocturnity?

RULING:
YES.  The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly
appreciated. It is self-evident that it was sought by appellant to facilitate the commission of
the offense, when all the members of the household were asleep. The fact that Restituto
Juanita hit a matchstick does not negate the presence of said aggravating circumstance.
 People Vs Damaso
G.R. No. L-30116
November 20, 1978

FACTS: On 21st day of November, 1959, at nighttime, the accused, four of whom are armed
with a scythe and firearms, namely: Fausto Damaso with a rifle, Estanislao Gregorio with a
scythe, Victoriano Eugenio and Lorenzo Alviar with a paltik confederating, conspiring, helping
and aiding one another, by means of force, violence, threats and intimidation upon the persons of
Donata Rebolledo, Victoriano de la Cruz and Susana Sabado, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, take, steal and carry away with them jewelries
and some cash of the victims. That the said accused, held and brought Catalina Sabado and
Susana Sabado, daughters of the said Donata Rebolledo, to a sugarcane field which is a secluded
and uninhabited place, at Barrio Bangar, Tarlac, and once there and after tying together the
respective forearms of the said Catatina Sabado and Susana Sabado, in pursuance of their
concerted conspiracy, by means of force and grave abuse of superior strength, the said accused
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, stab the said Catalina Sabado and
Susana Sabado on different parts of their body and cut their necks with a sharp pointed
instrument (scythe), as a result of which the latter died instantly.

ISSUE: W/N the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of armed band and
uninhabited place?

RULING: YES. The uninhibitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done
during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of
neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any
assistance. 

The aggravating circumstance of band exists whenever more than three armed malefactors
act together in the commission of an offense. The court concedes that at least three of the
accused-appellants, namely Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio were armed during the commission of
the crime.
 People v Andaya
G.R No. L-63862

FACTS: The defendant-appellant Vicente Andaya, was charged with the murder of Teresita
Cervantes, the said accused with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack several times on the victim,
hitting the latter on the head, thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused her instantaneous
death. Defendant pleaded “NOT GUILTY”.

ISSUE: WON the offense was committed in an uninhabited place

HELD: YES. The Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt  of the crime murder
qualified by treachery and aggravated by the circumstance of an uninhabited place, without any
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences him to the supreme penalty of death; to
indemnify the heirs of the late Teresita Cervantes the amount of P12,000.00 as compensatory
damages, and to pay the costs of the suit.
 People v Escabarte
G.R. No. 42964

FACTS: In an information that was filed by the First Assistant Provincial Fiscal in the CFI
Misamis Occidental, Francisco Escabarte alias Boy Escabarte, Gregorio Sygaco alias Korak,
Lauro Tome and Silas Paredes were charged of the crime of robbery with Homicide penalized
under Article 294, par.1 of the RPC. The said accused, conspiring and confederating together
with still unidentified masterminds in their common intent to rob and kill so as to eliminate the
leader of a group of land claimants, and taking advantage of the nighttime and of their superior
number and strength, did then and there break the window of the house so as to gain entrance by
a way not intended for the purpose, and once inside the same, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and treacherously shot the victim.

ISSUE: WON the crime was committed with Aggravating circumstances

HELD: YES. The commission of the crime was premeditated and reflected upon by the
appellants was preceded by cool thought and a reflection on the part of the appellants with the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a span of time sufficient to arrive at the hour of
judgment. The aggravating circumstances of the commission of the crime by a band has also
been established, it appears that there were more than three armed malefactors who acted
together in the commission of the offense. It is an aggravating circumstance in the crime of
robbery with homicide.
 US v. Abaigar
G.R. No. 1255, 17 August 1903

FACTS: The testimony of the witnesses and the confession of the accused himself show
unquestionably that the latter stabbed Constantino Nabaonag to death while he was bound, and
therefore unable to defend himself against the aggression. This circumstance constitutes alevosia,
and the offense is therefore properly classified as murder, defined and punished by article 403 of
the Penal Code. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the court below now before us in
consultation is correct, in so far as it finds the defendant guilty of the crime of murder. This
judgment condemns the accused to the penalty of death, the court considering that the crime was
committed with the aggravating circumstances of deliberate premeditation, the employment of
means tending to add ignominy to the necessary effects of the act, and the commission of the
crime with the assistance of armed men.

ISSUE: W/N the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of deliberate
premeditation.

RULING: No, because an examination of the record shows that the purpose of killing
Constantino arose suddenly in the mind of the defendant, and was instantaneously carried into
effect, upon information that the deceased had spoken ill of the defendant. Where the
determination to kill is followed immediately by the execution of the crime it is error to apply the
circumstance of deliberate premeditation in aggravation of the penalty.
 People v. Lagarto
G.R. No. 65833, 6 May 1991

FACTS: On May 25 1983, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening more or less, inside the public
market Bgy. Little Venice, Municipality of Laoang, Province of Northern Samar, Philippines,
Eugenio Lagarto y Getalado, Jr. with deliberate intent to kill with the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab Reynaldo Aducal, who was buying fish in the public market with the use
of a Batangas fan knife or Balisong which the above-named accused had provided himself for
the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said victim fatal wounds on his chest, which wounds caused
the instantaneous death of the victim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court correctly appreciated the existence of recidivism and the
qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.

RULING: No. The trial court’s judgment was MODIFIED by the Supreme Court. Appreciating
in his favor the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty which is offset by the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the Court sentenced said accused to an indeterminate
penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Reynaldo Aducal an
indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for
one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in
the same title of the Revised Penal Code
 US v. Sotelo
G.R. No. 9791, 3 October 1914

FACTS: The complaint alleged: "That on or about January 2, 1914, the said Sotelo, having
received from one Manuel Araneta for safe-keeping, on commission or for administration, a
plain gold ring set with three diamonds, valued at P250, the property of the said Araneta, for the
purpose of selling it and delivering the proceeds thereby derived to the said Araneta within a
period of two hours or of returning the said ring to the latter in case he should be unable to sell it,
said accused, Sotelo,did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally misapply,
misappropriate, and covert the said ring or its value in the sum of P250, Philippine currency, to
his own benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said Manuel Araneta in the sum of P250,
equivalent to 1,250 pesetas; that the accused is a recidivist; all contrary to law." 

ISSUE: W/N there is aggravating circumstance of recidivation?

RULING: Yes. After due consideration of the provisions of article 130, together with the views
of Viada, The court are inclined to the view that the pardon does not operate to defeat the
consideration of the former conviction as an aggravating circumstance. The lower court imposed
the penalty in the medium degree. Considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivation,
the penalty should be imposed in the maximum degree. Therefore, the sentence of the lower
court is hereby modified, and the defendant is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned for a
period of six months and one day of prision correccional and to pay the costs.
 Galang v. People
G.R. No. L-45698, 18 December 1937

FACTS: Galang was convicted of rape by the then Court of First Instance of Pampanga and
sentenced to suffer "an indeterminate sentence from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal as maximum; to suffer the accessory penalties as provided by law and to pay the costs.
Galang appealed his conviction to the then Intermediate Appellate Court. 

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner shall suffer an indeterminate penalty?

RULING: Yes. The imposable penalty for the offense of rape as provided in Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty which, pursuant
to the first paragraph of Article 63 of the same Code, should generally be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that might have attended the
commission of the deed. In fact both the Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals are of the
view that pursuant to said provision the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
 US V. FLORES
GR NO. 9008, SEPTEMBER 17, 1914

FACTS: Pedro Flores testified that the murder was planned by the appellant Lorenzo Orozco,
with whose wife the deceased had been maintaining illicit relations, and that he himself as well
as the other appellants had joined the party which committed the crime at the urgent invitation of
Orozco, who gave the various members of the party small sums of money as an expression of his
appreciation of their assistance (gratificacion). His testimony was fully corroborated by the
unquestioned and unquestionable testimony of a number of competent witnesses as to manner in
which the fatal wounds were inflicted, as to the place and manner of the burial of the deceased
after the commission of the crime, and as to the motive which inspired its instigator; and as the
participation of Lorenzo Orozco and Doroteo de los Santos.

ISSUE: Whether the commission of the crime these aggravating circumstances should have been
compensated by the extenuating circumstances set forth in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal
Code and in article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142

RULING: Yes. Upon a review of the whole record of the case, however, we are inclined to think
that this money was not offered or paid as a recompense for their participation in the crime, and
that it was not the moving factor which induced them to aid the offended husband in obtaining
his revenge. It seems rather to have been given voluntarily by Orozco after the crime had
been committed as a sort of expression of his appreciation of their sympathy and aid
(gratificacion).
 PEOPLE V. ABADIES
GR NO. 135957, AUGUST 14, 2002

FACTS: December 25, 1995, Cecilio Roldan, his wife Cynthia, their son Ronald and neighbour
Salve were celebrating Christmas Eve. Cynthia saw appellant Bonifacio Abadies her husband's
uncle, approached Cecilio from behind without warning, accused-appellant shot Cecilio with a
short firearm a Cecilio was hit on the upper back and slumped to the floor. Accused-appellant
admits having shot Cecilio but claims that the shooting was accidental because the gun went off
when he and Cecilio were grappling for its possession they both fell down with Cecilio on top of
him and tried to twist Cecilio's arm toward his back, when the gun... suddenly went off.
Immediately after the explosion, accused-appellant and his two sons fled leaving the victim
alone. There were no other people present when the incident happened.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court that the killing of Cecilio Roldan was attended by alevosia.

RULING: Yes. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35, in Criminal
Case No. 47560, finding accused-appellant Bonifacio Abadies guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Murder and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased the sums of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity for death, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as actual damages, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua instead of Death. There being no aggravating circumstance to be
appreciated, the proper imposable penalty for the killing of Cecilio Roldan is reclusion
perpetua. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the
penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The lesser of these two indivisible
penalties shall be imposed, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the said Code.
 People v. Mabug-at,
G.R. No. L-25459, 10 August 1926

FACTS: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts and on August 11th of 1925, the
accused invited for a meet up after Juana refused his invitation in August 09 because of Jealousy.
Upon the meet-up in August 11, the accused while waiting Juana together with her niece Perfecta
Buralo, fired a shot from his revolver which wounded Perfecta Buralo, the bullet passing through
her neck, having entered the posterior region thereof and coming out through the left eye, which
was completely destroyed. 

ISSUE: WON, the crime was accompanied with aggravating circumstances.

RULING:  Treachery. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered,

even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it
appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense
against the attack, or become aware of it. 
With the exception of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, there are no other aggravating
circumstances. The judgment appealed from the being in accordance with the law and the facts
proven, the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with the cost against the appellant.
 People v. Medrana
G.R. No. L-31871 14 December 1981

Facts: Fernandez invited Medalla to attend his birthday party at the Nile Restaurant on Friday,
September 8. Fernandez introduced Melvin to Medalla, telling the latter that Melvin is a nephew
of Nemesio Yabut. Medalla uttered derogatory remarks against Nemesio Yabut, branding him as
a squealer who caused the apprehension of two trucks of Medalla and whom he (Medalla) would
kick and spit on. Fernandez countered that Medalla should not do that because Nemesio Yabut
was his (Oying’s) compadre. Shortly thereafter, Medalla directed Medrana to get from his car a
Thompson submachine gun so that he could fire it. After Belarmino had fired at Fernandez, the
latter fell and then he stood up with raised hands, saying: “Don’t kill me. I’ll not fight.” As
Fernandez walked towards his car, which was a few meters away, Medrana fired at him.

Medrana was charged with murder. It was alleged that he conspired with Belarmino, Hermo and
Medalla to kill Fernandez. After trial, the lower court convicted him of murder qualified by
abuse of superiority and aggravated by cuadrilla.
 
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in holding that the killing was qualified by abuse of
authority.

Held: No. Appellant’s contention in his seventh assignment of error that the trial court
erred in holding that the killing was qualified by abuse of superiority is not well taken. It is
incontestable that the four accused, all armed, ganged up against Fernandez and took
advantage of their numerical superiority in liquidating him with impunity. What happened
in this case is known in colloquial parlance as “overkill”. Appellant’s contention in his eighth
assignment of error ‘that abuse of superiority absorbed cuadrilla is correct. Band cannot be
appreciated in this case as an aggravating circumstance independently of abuse of superior
strength. If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band (U.S. vs. Abelinde, 1, Phil. 568),
then it is reasonable to hold that band should not be treated as an aggravating circumstance
separate and distinct from abuse of superior strength. The two circumstances have the same
essence which is the utilization of the combined strength of the assailants to overpower the
victim and consummate the killing.
 People v. Cabangcala,
G.R. No. 135065, 8 August 2001
 
 
Facts: On February 7, 1997, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Rovellano Abrasia, fifteen
years old, testified that he and his first degree cousins, the Cabangcala brothers, Benny, Rene and
Danny (appellants herein), had just finished cutting cogon in the mountains of Barangay Ricos,
Umingan, Pangasinan. Then after, Rovellano accompanied Danny to the barbershop. While
having his hair cut, Danny saw the victim Dionisio "Isio" Pascual drinking gin with Anciong
Abrasia and Quisot Camacho in front of the house of Corazon Morante. After such, Canbangcala
brothers with Rovellano went to the house of Danny, where they drank gin together with Benny
and Rene. There, Rovellano overheard the Cabangcala brothers talking about the victim.
Rovellano recalled that a week before, Mario Cabangcala, appellant's younger brother, told him
that he had a quarrel with the victim's son. At around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, that same
day, Benny announced a plan to kill the victim. The four continued drinking until 10:00 o'clock
in the evening during which period Danny would occasionally go out to verify if the victim was
still at Morante's place. The Cabangcala brothers then proceeded to execute their plan and,
together with Rovellano, waited for the victim at a place halfway within the 100-meter distance
between the house of Morante and the Cabangcalas, along a footpath where the expected victim
would use in going home. Benny approached the victim and struck him twice with the bamboo
hitting the latter on the left cheek and the neck. The victim fell, after which Danny and Rene
joined Benny in mauling the victim.
 
Issue: WON par 11 of Art 14 Aggravating circumstance can be appreciated in this case?
 
Ruling: NO. In the present case, accused-appellants were priorly unarmed, and it was only when
they were about to commit the crime, while waiting for the victim to pass by the bamboo groove
that they thought of getting some implement, a crude bamboo pole which they cut right there and
then. We further note that only Benny approached the victim, striking him with the said piece of
bamboo. Only after the victim fell, having been struck twice by Benny, did the two brothers
joined in mauling the victim to death. Obviously, the three accused-appellants did not purposely
take advantage of their superior strength.
 
Regarding abuse of superior strength as aggravating circumstance, what should be considered is
not that there were three, four or more assailants as against one victim, but whether the
aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense
(People vs. Platilla, 304 SCRA 339 [1999]).
 People v. Lacao
G.R. No. 95320 4 September 1991

Facts: A commotion arose from a card game where one Mansueto Rivera was losing and
accused Baltazar Lacao II, who was playing with him, was furiously arguing with the former.
Baltazar Lacao II then unsheathed his knife and threatened Mansueto Rivera by pointing the
knife at the latter’s neck. Wilma Rivera, the sister-in-law of Mansueto, intervened and Baltazar
Lacao II released the latter. Baltazar Lacao II then went inside the house wielding his knife and
causing the other guests to panic. It was then that Cpl. Jose G. lnocencio, Jr. went down to
inquire into the matter and to pacify the people. When he saw Baltazar Lacao Il with a knife, he
held the latter’s hand holding that knife. When Cpl. Inocencio released Baltazar Lacao II, the
latter suddenly stabbed Inocencio on his right side. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. and his other son Baltazar
Lacao III, together with his wife, Patria Lacao, and his sister, Trinidad Lacao Mansilla, rushed
inside the house and surrounded the victim. The men then stabbed Cpl. Inocencio several times
while the women hit him with stools. As the attack continued, the victim was pushed toward the
door of the kitchen and he later slumped on the floor facing downward. Thereafter, this appellant
asked: “Nyor, Nyor, are you still alive?” Appellant Patria Lacao interjected: “What are you
waiting for, it is already finished, we have to go.” Baltazar Lacao III then got the gun of Cpl.
Inocencio and all the accused went away. 

Issue: Whether or not treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.

Held: Yes. In the present case, the deceased was stabbed without warning the moment he
unsuspectingly released the hand of Baltazar Lacao II. So sudden and unanticipated was the
attack that the victim was given no chance to defend himself. Then herein appellants, although
apparently acting without prior agreement, also instantly and all together attacked him. Even if
their aforesaid acts were independently performed on their individual initiatives, such
concerted action ensured the commission of the crime without risk to them arising from
any defense or retaliation that the victim might have resorted to. Treachery was thus
correctly appreciated against all appellants, the use of superior strength being absorbed as
an integral part of the treacherous mode of commission.
 People v. Flores, G.R. No. 137497, 5 February 2004

FACTS: On May 30, 1998, Nathaniel dela Cruz went to Imelda District, Cabanatuan City to
attend his brother Henrys birthday party. On his way home at around 7 oclock in the evening, he
passed by a store. Appellant and one Reggie Malubay were there.Suddenly, appellant accosted
Nathaniel and put his arm on the latters shoulders, at the same time poking a knife at him.3
Reggie immediately apprised Marissa dela Cruz, Nathaniels sister-in-law, of the incident. She
pleaded with appellant to spare Nathaniels life. In turn, appellant proposed that her husband take
the place of Nathaniel. Pretending she was acceding to appellants demand, she promised to fetch
her husband Henry.At this point, Nathaniel and appellant struggled for the possession of the
knife. As they were grappling for the weapon, appellant stabbed Nathaniel. Marissa rushed home
to call her husband. Meantime, Nathaniel fought back and was able to run away4 but he
accidentally tripped and fell to the ground.At that moment, appellant who was chasing Nathaniel,
repeatedly stabbed him. Dr. Jun Concepcion, Medico-Legal Officer in the City Health Office of
Cabanatuan City, testified that the cause of death of Nathaniel was hypovolemic shock secondary
to multiple stab wounds.His findings, reflected in his autopsy report. he defense, on the other
hand, presented appellant as its lone witness. He denied any participation in the commission of
the crime. He claimed that on the night of May 30, 1998, he was in the house of Joel Flores in
Purok 5 of Imelda District, Cabanatuan City, engaged in a drinking spree with Patricio
Tolentino. At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, they proceeded to the house of Patricio in
Purok 6 where they again had another drinking session. It was on June 2, 1998 that he learned
from the by-standers in their place that a certain Nathaniel dela Cruz was killed.That same day,
he went to his fathers place in Balagtas, Bulacan. On July 28, 1998, he was apprehended in
Palawan by the police and was turned over to the Cabanatuan City Police on August 4, 1998.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Accused is guilty of treachery.

RULING: NO. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.18 Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a)
the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and
consciously adopted.19 Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime
itself.

The stabbing of Nathaniel was a result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the part of
appellant rather than a deliberate act of will. Clearly then, with the first stab inflicted, he was
forewarned of the danger to his life. Furthermore, Dr. Concepcion found that appellants left palm
sustained stab wounds. All these and that he was able to flee, albeit too late, negate the presence
of treachery. Indeed, the prosecution failed to convince us that the two conditions (for treachery
to exist) specified above are present in this case.
 People v. Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, 14 March 2003

FACTS: Vicente Eusebio testified that on February 18, 1993, he was smoking cigarettes in front
of the house of Purificacion Reazon at Barangay Oring, Caramoan, Camarines Sur. At around
2:00 p.m., he saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being followed by herein
appellant Expedito Alfon. As soon as the victim and appellant were about six meters away from
him, appellant came from behind the unsuspecting victim, and suddenly stabbed the latter twice
with a knife known as balisong 29. The victim was hit on the left portion of his ribs and on the
right side of his chest. As he fell on the ground face down, appellant ran away towards the
seashore. Eusebio shouted for help, and immediately, Manuel Rayoso, Jesus Arranza, and
Agripino Lazado responded. They carried the victim to a motorboat and brought him to a doctor
in Poblacion, Caramoan. Unfortunately, Tomas Alferez did not survive. Manuel Rayoso, the
second eyewitness, testified that on February 18, 1993, at around 2:00 p.m., while walking near
the house of Purificacion Reazon, he saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being
followed by the appellant. Shortly thereafter, when the victim and appellant were six meters
away from him, he witnessed the appellant suddenly hold the victims shoulder and stab the latter
with a balisong at the lower left side of his chest. Appellant then ran away towards the seashore.
Dr. Minerva Aguirre, Municipal Health Officer of Caramoan who conducted the autopsy of the
victims body, testified on her post mortem findings. As indicated in the autopsy report,8 she
verified that the victim sustained two stab wounds: one on the right lower part of the victims
nipple, and the other on the left lower part of the chest, which she found to be the more fatal. She
also found an incised wound on the dorsal part of the victims right index finger. She stated that a
sharp-bladed instrument could have caused the wounds. The cause of death, as declared in said
autopsy report, is profuse hemorrhage secondary to stab wound. The trial court concluded that
the eyewitnesses testimonies convincingly established that appellant had killed the victim with
treachery. It, however, ruled out the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation for lack
of proof. It rejected the denial and version of the appellant due to the lack of supporting
evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant had kill the victim with treachery.

RULING: YES. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim
which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack.27 This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind.
Even a 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.28 The fact that the location of the fatal
stab wound is in front does not in itself negate treachery.29 In the case at bar, it was established
that appellant came from behind, went towards the right of the victim, and suddenly stabbed the
victims chest while holding the latters left shoulder. Evidence shows that, first, at the time of
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was unarmed and totally
unsuspecting when appellant suddenly held and stabbed him; and second, appellant consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means of attack, as he was seen surreptitiously following
the victim with a balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore, treachery attended the
crime.
 People v. Carmina
G.R. No. 81404
28 January 1991

Facts: According to the testimony of the victim's brother, Victoriano Agotano, he and Billy
(victim) were on their way home from their farm when they were intercepted at gunpoint by
Valero Carmina, Ernita (Valero's wife), Israel (son) and Aileen Masanguid around 5 in the
afternoon. They accused Billy of being a "pulahan" for wealing a red shirt on his head. They
went to a nearby house where Valero and Israel struck Billy on the forehead and chest. They then
marched down Afredo's house, Victoriano and Billy's brother. They were ordered to sing
"Lupang Hinirang" and were told that they will die. After 20 minutes, they went to a cousin of
the Agotano's house where they demanded food and tuba. After drinking tuba, they went to
Ramon Katiad's house, cook the food, and ate. At around 10 p.m., Israel told Billy that he is
going to kill him. They went outside, he made Billy kneel and then he shot him on the nape. He
then ordered everyone to come outside and see Billy's body. He stripped and exposed the body.
Using his mother's bolo, he chopped Billy's arms and legs and then beheaded him. He cut open
the body's stomach and pulled out his intestines which he hung around Victoriano's neck. And
lastly, he pulled out the body's liver and lungs and shouted, "We will use this as pulutan!" He
lunged at Victoriano, attempting to kill him next, but he lost his balance enabling Victoriano to
parry a blow. He then ran for his life back to their house. The next morning, they reported the
incident to the authorities.

 Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder.

Ruling: Yes. The crime was qualified with treachery because, although the victim was
forewarned of his impending death, he was shot in the back while he was entirely defenseless,
and the killers were under no risk whatsoever from any retaliation the victim might make. In
People v. Barba,2 the accused pointed a rifle at the victim from distance of six meters and said,
"Pardong, stand up, we are going to shoot you!" With hands raised, the victim pleaded, "Do not
kill me, investigate first what was my fault!" This Court held there was treachery when the
accused shot and killed the victim.
 People vs. Real
G.R. no. 93436

Facts: At about 9:00 A.M. on March 17, 1978, in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate,
appellant and Edgardo Corpus, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use
the market table to display their fish. When Corpus kept on walking near the disputed fish table,
appellant started to sharpen his bolo while murmuring to himself. Once Corpus turned around
with his back towards appellant, the latter hacked him on the nape. The blow caused Corpus to
collapse. He was rushed to a medical clinic. When asked by his wife as to who hacked him, he
answered "Melchor Real." Respondent contends that he was controlled by his anger because of
the provocation of the deceased.  

 The accused was previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed on July 6, 1965 and grave
threats on November 25, 1968.

Issue: Whether or not aggravating circumstance of recidivism can be invoked? 

Ruling: Yes, aggravating circumstance of recidivism can be invoked. A recidivist is one who at
the time of trial, was previously convicted by a final order of a crime embraced in the same title.
The present case, which is homicide, and the old case, which is ill-treatment, fall under the same
title which is Title 8 of RPC. 
Aggravating Circumstance was offset by a mitigating circumstance which is passion or
obfuscation.
 People v. Pacris
G.R. No. 69986
5 March 1991

Facts: On April 30, 1980, in the municipality of Sanchez Mira, province of Cagayan, they were
just taken their breakfast when they saw many people about fifty (50) in number catching bangus
fry. Upon seeing that they were not his employees, Rogelio Lim inquired from them why they
were catching fry in his concession.  Somebody answered that they were sent by Valeriano
Pacris to gather bangus fry in that area.  Nestor Pacris clubbed said Rogelio Lim on the head
with a boat paddle.  When Rogelio turned to face his assailant, Nestor Pacris again hit Rogelio
Lim on the right side of his face causing the latter to fall on the ground face up.  While Rogelio
was in such position, Valeriano Pacris knelt by his side and stabbed him with a pointed iron,
hitting him on the right side of his forehead which caused his death. 

Issue: Whether the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the crime charged should be appreciated

Ruling: No. In their brief, appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding the presence of all
four (4) aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength and cruelty as circumstances that qualify the crime to murder.  The Solicitor
General concedes, and this Court agrees with the Solicitor General, that the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength should not have been considered by the
trial court, it being absorbed by treachery. Cruelty, too, cannot be considered as qualifying in the
instant case since it was not alleged in the information; at most, it may only serve as a generic
aggravating circumstance.  But for cruelty to be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were
inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong physical suffering. Evident
premeditation, too, was not sufficiently established.
 People v. Aguinaldo,
G.R. No. 33843, 11 February 1931

Facts: Accused did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously killed Anselmo Oao, with a bolo, the
crime being committed in an uninhabited place, with evident premeditation, treachery, and
cruelty. Court found the defendant guilty with qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the
aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place, sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Upon autopsy, the wounds were mortal and death was due to excitement and hemorrhage caused
by multiple stabbed wounds. The dead man’s position when he received the first blow, with his
back to the defendant and bent down, because he was digging up medical roots in a gully,
entirely unprepared to protect himself against the accused. 

Issue: WON the court erred in finding the accused guilty with aggravating circumstance of
cruelty?

Ruling: YES. In the instant case of murder the number of wounds found upon the corpse-does
not, by itself alone, justify the acceptance of the circumstance of cruelty, it being necessary to
show that the accused deliberately and inhumanly increased the sufferings of the victim. The
accused is penalized of life imprisonment- medium degree of that fixed in article 403 of the
Penal Code for the crime of murder.