PEOPLE v DACILLO aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, recidivism FACTS: 17 yr old Rosemarie Tallada was last seen

alive at dusk on Feb 6, 2000 on the bridge near appellant's house Jovelyn, victim's cousin, saw her on the bridge and was told she was waiting for someone. She heard a man calling, "Psst" and saw Rosemarie entering appellant's house A struggle was heard from house, floor was shaking on the other house, and from a hole on the wall appellant and another man grappling with a woman who was gagged with a handkerchief was seen They heard the sound of a woman being beaten up, then appellant left the house0 The next day, appellant carried to the house lumber and screen and ready-mixed cement in a plastic pail supposedly for his sink He entrusted bag of woman's personal belongings to a tanod By Feb 11, neighbors started smelling the rotten odor of Rosemaries already decomposing body. Droplets of blood and pus dripped from appellants comfort room Neighbors climbed up the house and was greeted by the stink emanating from the corner where a tomb-like structure was seen The police were called thereafter who opened the lock and forcibly cracked open the tomb which revealed a decomposing body of a woman REPORT: Stabbed in abdomen, chest wall, right hand - showed struggle and wounds inflicted before death Accused admitted crime but claimed he only held the feet of the victim while another man killed her He claimed that he already saw Pacot and Rosemarie grappling with each other INFORMATION: Treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt for MURDER qualified by abuse of superior strength with aggravating circumstance of recidivism; PENALTY: Death ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstances should be appreciated HELD: 1. Holding Rosemaries legs made him a principal by direct participation. He admitted that they only stopped when they were sure that Rosemarie was already dead. 2. conspiracy - malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective 3. Abuse of superior strength shown when two grown-up men against a young fragile woman whose ability to defend herself had been effectively restrained revealed a shocking inequality of physical strength. 4. Death penalty not proper because aggravating circumstance of recidivism for prior conviction for death of his former live-in partner was not alleged in the information DISPOSITION: Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength; penalty: MURDER PEOPLE v CAJARA Relationship; Recidivism; in full view of relatives 16 year old Marita Cajote stayed with her sister Merly ad latter's husband in one room without partition At about 2AM in the morning Marita was awakened by the accused who was already n top of her and used a bolo to threaten her He placed his bolo aside and held Marita's hands with his right hand while his left hand lowered Marita's pants and panty Marita shouted for help but her sister pretended to be asleep. Accused inserted fingers into her private part and then her penis into her vagina. Meling then pulled Elming away and hit latter in the eye. Elming boxed Meling on the mouth and icked her when she fell on the floor. He resumed his acts. He inserted her penis again while the 2 children were helplessy watching. She thereafter ran away but was overtaken so she pretented to submit but saw an opportunity to go to her sisters' house to whom she reported the incident. She was told not to report for fear of retaliation but she proceeded to the barangay captain who gave her the same advice a the latter has killed 6 people already. He then endorsed the case to PNP in Samar. Upon examination, a healed laceration of her hymen was seen. Defense denied accusation and was backed up by her wife that there was a fight between her and Marita which led to said case. RTC: Convicted him for Qualified Rape and sentenced to death due to minority of victim, relationship by affinity and rape was committed in full view of his family ISSUE: 1. Whether relationship as an aggravating circumstance should be appreciated 2. Whether accused can be convicted of qualified rape as it was committed in full view of victim's relatives HELD: 1. No, because victim's sister and accused are not married and are merely common-law husband and wife, thus there was no relationship by affinity within 3rd civil degree at the time of commision 2. No, this was not alleged in the information so he is not guilty of qualified rape but of simple rape. 3. There is aggravating circumstance of Recidivism. DISPOSITION: Rape; penalty - reclusion perpetua PEOPLE v BERNAL aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and habitual drunkenness, FACTS: Appellant, Fernando, Felix, Rey all surnamed Bernal and the victim Pedrito went to a pubhouse. Pedrito Rey and appellant went inside while Fernando and Felix waited outside. Fernando later went inside and saw the three in a sleeping position. Fernando then asked Felix to start the trycicle as they would bring home the three. He first brought Pedrito out of the pub and had him seated at the passengers seat inside the trycicle. Fernado then got appellant who was roused when they reached the trycicle. While Fernado was fetching Rey, accused positioned himself at the back of Pedrito who was still asleep and discharged his firearm twice hitting the latter on the head. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation 2) Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating treachery Held: 1) No, they did not. 2) Yes, they did. Ratio: 1) The attack on Pedrito was sudden, as he was shot from behind and while asleep, giving him no chance to defend himself. No altercation was heard by Fernando or Felix Bernal, so it seemed that Pedrito was still asleep when he was shot.

If the attack, is sudden, unexpected, not preceded by any provocation, and the deceased is not in a situation to defend himself, treachery must be considered as a qualifying circumstance of murder. 2) Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated without proof of how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time elapsed before it was carried out. This must be evident, and not merely suspected. There was no evidence directly showing any preconceived plan or device employed to kill the victim. Arnel went to Barangay Dangdangla, Bangued to attend to some important matters, not to kill Pedrito. Arnel was just invited by his relatives to have a drinking spree, and it is probable that the decision to kill Pedrito only occurred there and then. There mere existence of ill-feeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient to establish premeditated killing. There must be an outward act showing or manifesting criminal intent. PEOPLE v BISO Facts: Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual advances to her in the presence of her brother, Eduardo. Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso an ex-convict and a known toughie in the area, and related to him what Dario had done to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2 others decided to confront Dario. They positioned themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. Dario arrived on board a taxicab. The four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with his right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered the mouth of Dario with his left hand. The 2 others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo stabbed Dario and fled with his three companions from the scene. RTC: ISSUES: Held: There was no evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how the malefactors intended to consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the appellant and his three companions waited in an alley for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his cohorts showing that that they had clung to any plan to kill the victim. PEOPLE v LABUGUEN FACTS: Under the pretext of selling 3 cows to the victim, Labuguen convinced the victim to see the cows and bring P40,000 with him. The two rode on the victiims motorcycle and Labuguen lured him to where he could divest the victim of his money with the least danger of being caught. He then boarded a bus leaving the motorcycle of the victim on the side of the road. The victims dead body was found on the middle of a rice field, 50 meters from the service drop of an irrigation canal. He hailed a bus in which the conductor noted his bloody jacket. Based on the strength of the testimony of the witnesses, complaint and information were filed against Vivencio and the RTC found him guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced with the penalty of death. The case was brought to the SC for automatic review. Issue: Whether or not the court has correctly appreciated the employment of generic aggravating circumstance of fraud and craft in the commission of the crime even if not alleged in the information? Held Though not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstances of fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court. Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present. By saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the victim to go with him. Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Robbery with Homicide is reclusion perpetua to death Applying Article 63 of the same Code, the imposable penalty under the premises is death in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and the absence of any mitigating circumstance. 4 members of the Court are steadfast in their adherence to the separate opinion expressed in People vs. Echegaray that Republic Act No. 7659is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. However, they bow to the majority opinion that the aforesaid law is constitutional and therefore, the penalty prescribe thereunder has to be imposed PEOPLE v SANSAET FACTS: 16 friends, which included the accused and the deceased, were drinking tuba with pulutan at a hut owned by Marcelo Tumaob. Uldarico was drinking with 15 other men which include the Sansaet brothers, Rogelio, Leopoldo and Silverio. Then a bad joke was brought up in which Leopoldo (accused) claimed that Silverio(accused) had a long penis but Uldarico (the deceased) claimed that his friend had longer. Afterwards, Leopoldo asked Uldarico to ask his wife how long Vinos penis is. This angered Uldarico. Verbal exchanges ensued and Rogelio (accused) asked Uldarico why he was so brave and that they should take this outside. Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico started hacking each other with bolos. Silverio and Leopolo positioned themselves behind the victim and also hacked him. Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio. Rogelio then hacked Uldarico a 2nd time. Leopoldo and Rogelio continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell. They then dragged Uldarico towards the river and there they each twice hacked Uldarico resulting to his death. RTC ruling: Guilty of murder, sentenced to reclusion perpetua Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credit to the testimony of prosecution witness Herminio Mondragon Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the evidence of the accused Held: Sustained the conviction of the accused, not of murder, but of homicide. In the absence of any modifying circumstance, sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Ratio: Prosecution did not sufficiently prove the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength alleged in the information. Mere superiority in number, even assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The prosecution should still prove that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked.

PEOPLE v VENTURA Ventura armed with a .38 Caliber Homemade Revolver and Flores armed with a bladed weapon, entered the house of the Bocatejas by cutting a hole in the kitchen door. Ventura announced a hold-up and hit Jaime on the head and asked for the keys. Jaime called out for help and tried to wrestle the gun away from Ventura. Flores then stabbed Jaime 3 times. Flores also stabbed Jaimes wife Aileen who had been awakened. Aileen tried to defend herself with an elecrtric cord to no avail. Aileen died on the hospital on the same day. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances should be appreciated HELD: Evident premeditation present: appellants arrived at the house at 11PM, entered at 2AM when it was decidedly dark, all members therein fast asleep, proceeding directly to the spouses bedroom. Evident premeditation may be present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. Superior strength present: lores was taller and probably stronger than Aileen because of their difference in sex and that Flores was armed that time. Dwelling was correctly appreciated: crimes were committed in the place of abode of the victims who had not given immediate provocation. Breaking of door not alleged. Nocturnity: while bedroom was well-lit, evidence shows that in furtherance of the intent, appellants deliberately took advantage of nighttime, as well as the fact that the household was asleep in order to gain entry. Purposefully waited. No passion and obfuscation: 10 hours had elapsed Appellants guilty of attempted murder qualified by evident premeditation with aggravating circumstance of dwelling and nighttime, sentenced to 6years of Prision Correccional as minimum to 12 years of Prision Mayor as maximum. Appellants guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling, and nighttime, sentenced to death. PEOPLE v PIEDAD Facts: On the night of April 10, 1996, victim Mateo Lactawan, and his friend Andrew were drinking beer when he got involved in a fist fight with other people drinking alcohol in the nearby store. That was when Luz, Mateos wife arrived in the scene of the crime and saw that a group of men were attacking his husband. Among the other aggressors who continuedly boxed Mateo whos already lying on the ground, Luz saw Niel struck Mateo on the head with a stone, and Lito stabbed Mateo on the back, thereby inflicting traumatic head injuries and a stab wound which eventually led to Mateos death. Niel Piedad claims that the attack on the victim was made upon an impulse of the moment and was not the product of deliberate intent; while Lito Garcia contends that treachery cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the attack was preceded by a quarrel and heated discussion. Issue: Whether or not treachery must be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance? Held: Yes. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. While it is true that the victim herein may have been warned of a possible danger to his person, since the victim and his companion headed towards their residence when they saw the group of accused-appellants coming back for them after an earlier quarrel just minutes before, in treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. In the case at bar, Mateo did not have any chance of defending himself from the concerted assault of his aggressors, even if he was forewarned of the attack. Mateo was obviously overpowered and helpless when accused appellants group numbering around eight, ganged up and mauled him. More importantly, Mateo could not have actually anticipated the sudden landing of a large concrete stone on his head. The stone was thus treacherously struck. Neither could the victim have been aware that Lito came up beside him to stab his back as persons were beating him from every direction. Litos act of stabbing the victim with a knife, inflicting a 15-centimeter-deep wound shows deliberate intent of using a particular means of attack. Considering the location of the injuries sustained by the victim and the absence of defense wounds, Mateo clearly had no chance to defend himself. In view of the foregoing, treachery was correctly appreciated by the trial court. PEOPLE v DUMADAG FACTS: Prudente with his friends including Meliston agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate the feast of St. John. On their way home, there was heavy downpour so they decided to take a shelter at a store where 2 men, 1 of whom is Dumadag are having some drinks. Dumadag offered Prudente a drink of Tanduay but the latter refused then left. Dumadag followed Prudented and stabbed the victim on his breast with a knife which resulted to his death. RTC: ISSUES: HELD: As a general rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply if the attack was not preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an act made by the victim. In the present case, it is apparent that the attack was not preconceived. It was triggered by the appellant's anger because of the victim's refusal. PEOPLE v CACHOLA Facts: Jessie was about to leave their house to watch cartoons in his uncle's house next door when accused suddenly entered the front door of their house. They ordered Jessie to drop to the floor, and then hit him in the back with the butt of a long gun. Without much ado, the intruders shot to death Jessie's uncle, Victorino who was then in the living room. Jessie forthwith crawled and hid under a bed, from where he saw the feet of a third man who had also entered the house. The men entered the kitchen and continued shooting. When the rampage was over and after the malefactors had already departed, Jessie came out of his hiding place and proceeded to the kitchen. There he saw his mother, Carmelita; his brother Felix.; and his cousin Rubenson all slaughtered. The death certificate of Victorino reveals that his penis was excised. Issues: Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are present o The killings were no doubt done with treachery considering that the assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went in a shooting rampage. The attack was sudden and unexpected. o However, there is no evidence of planning and preparation to kill to prove evident premeditation. Whether the aggravating circumstance of ignominy could be appreciated

o The penis of Victorino was reportedly cut off. However, apparently, he was already dead when this was done. There is no allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. o Hence, ignominy cannot be appreciated. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling could be appreciated o In the case of Carmelita and Felix, such could be appreciated but not for Victorino and Rubenson. Resolution o In the cases of Carmelita and Felix, there is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, hence the higher penalty of death imposed stands. o But in the case of Victorino and Rubenson, there is no aggravatin and mitigating circumstance and hence, the lower of the two indivisible penalties are prescribed. o Decision is modified, Cachola and Amay are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and ordered to pay, jointly, and severally damages ti the heirs of the victims. People v Bumidang 346 SCRA 807 (20) (December 4, 2000) Aggravating Circumstance Dwelling, Nighttime, Ignominy IGNOMINY: Raped in the presence of father and used flashlight to examine genitals FACTS: On September 29, 1996, at around 2:00 a.m., Bumidang, 19, went to the house of Melencio (father of victim), 80, and Gloria, 56, (victim) while the latter were asleep and loudly called Melencio to open the door for him or he will kill him. He asked where Melencio was sleeping and proceeded to said room where he got a spear at the side of Melencio's bed. Pointing in a threatening manner, he asked Melencio to lie prone and point to him where Gloria was sleeping which was in the same room merely separated by an aparador. Gloria screamed upon seeing accused while Bumidang poked spear at her. He also threatened Melencio that he will kill him if he helped his daughter. Gloria recognized him as he used a flashlight to light the room. He ordered Gloria to undress though he eventually undressed her pajama and panty while Gloria was struggling to be free. He also removed his clothes. He thereafter used a flashlight to examine her genitals. In the presence of Melencio, he inserted his penis in Glorias vagina. Gloria screamed for help from her father but Bumidang threatened them with the spear so Melencio did not help his daughter as he was afraid and too ashamed to look. After satisfying his lust, Bumidang held Glorias breast and kissed her lips and left. He threatened to kill them if they report to the police. The incident was not immediately reported because they were too afraid of the threat. However, Gloria reported to a Kagawad and the accused was immediately arrested. On medical examination, Gloria exhibited severe pain at the insertion of the physicians index finger. Results showed laceration of hymen 3 to 5 days old. He intimated that lacerations may have been caused by erect penis. DI NGA Bumidang escaped from jail before trial so the trial court issued an order to proceed with the trial of the case in absentia. INFORMATION: Rape with the use of deadly weapon, abuse of superior strength, and by means of force, violence, threat and intimidation RTC: RAPE with aggravating circumstances of (a) dwelling, because the victim was raped in her own house; (b) nighttime, because the sexual assault was perpetrated at about 2:00 a.m. to facilitate the commission of the offense; and (c) ignominy, because he used his flashlight to examine Gloria's vagina and raped her in the presence of her old father, thereby making its effects more humiliating. Since the crime was committed with a deadly weapon, the prescribed penalty for the crime of Rape under RPC 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death, and considering the presence of three aggravating circumstances, the greater penalty of death by lethal injection should be imposed pursuant to RPC 63. VERSION OF ACCUSED: (1) they allowed him to enter their house in order to forestall the latter from making good his warning of setting their house on fire; (2) Gloria was awake when BALIWANG made his threats; (3) Gloria had identified BAqqLIWANG through his voice; which are different from or inconsistent with their testimonies during the trial. Such being the case, the trial court should not have given credit to their testimonies in court. ISSUES: 1) Whether testimonies of Gloria and Melencio should be given credence despite inconsistencies (YES) 2) Whether aggravating circumstances should be appreciated (YES, except nighttime) HELD: AUTOMATIC REVIEW. Affirmed RTC except for aggravating circumstance of nighttime. He is guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, case is forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. a. Dwelling Considered because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. b.Ignominy Deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped her. c. Nighttime It was not proven that Bumidang deliberately availed himself or took advantage of nighttime or used the darkness to facilitate his evil design or to conceal his identity. PEOPLE v BAELLO Facts: Brgy. Captain Borja awoke one night to find out that their front door was open and that their TV set was missing. He and his wife saw their dead daughter lying in bed. The TV set was recovered by the police at the house of Tadifo, Baellos brother-in-law. Tadifo claimed that Baello and Jerry had an agreement to rob the house of Borja. It was Jerry who killed Borjas daughter because it was he who was left inside the house. ISSUES & RATIO: WON Baellos extra-judicial confession is admissible even if he allegedly was not fully & duly assisted by counsel when such was given YES. He voluntarily accepted Generosos services pursuant to Sec. 12(1), Art. III of the Consti w/c provides that if a person cant afford the services of counsel, he must be provided w/one. Document was presented that the counsel duly informed Baello of his constitutional rights as well as the consequences of his confession. He was even advised not to make any but he insisted. If these were true, then he should have not signed the document or he should have complained. Similar cases have upheld the admissibility of such extra-judicial confessions such as People vs. Pinzon. PEOPLE v CATIAN Facts: Catian repeatedly strike Willy with a "chako" on the head, causing Willy to fall on his knees. Calunod seconded by striking the victim with a piece of wood on the face. When Willy finally collapsed, Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over his shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they burned Willy. The latters skeletal remains were discovered by a child who was pasturing his cow near a peanut plantation. Accused: alibi at their respective houses RTC: accused were not able to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be there at the time of the crime.

 killing was attended by treachery(accused ganged up on their quarry while the latter was helpless and defenseless, obviously resorting to nighttime to facilitate the commission of the crime and where no one could come to the rescue), evident premeditation, cruelty and ignominy, and that there was conspiracy among the accused SC: DECISION AFFIRMED. GUILTY. / treachery but not for RTCs reasons afforded the victim no occasion whatsoever to defend himself. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder. X aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, cruelty and ignominy were not attendant in the commission of the crime. To authorize the finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish (a) the time when accused-appellants determined to commit the crime; (b) the act showing that they clung to their determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act.[18] X no ignominy - no showing that the victim was burned while he was still alive / conspiracy clear from evidence PEOPLE v GUERRERO FACTS: Orlando Guerrero, Jr., also known as Pablo, together with his father Orlando Guerrero, Sr., nicknamed Dino, was accused of murder. They allegedly beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter with treachery and evident premeditation. Appellant admitted killing the victim, according to Jacalne, by clubbing the victim first with the wooden stick,and then cutting his head and his penis with a knife. Another witness, Ireneo Acierto, appellants brother-in-law, testified that while he was resting in his house at past 11:30 in the morning of July 7, 1997, he heard someone screaming. When he looked out from his window, he saw that the person screaming was his sister-in-law, Ana. He went out of the house and went near the porch of the Guerreros, where he saw Ernesto Ocampos head about to be severed by appellant. When the head was cut off, appellant placed the same on the right side of the victims trunk. After that, appellant cut off Ernestos penis. Ireneo noticed that while the head was being severed, the victim was lying down on the floor, but not moving. Ireneo then told appellant, That is enough, bayaw. Stop it. According to the witness, his wife Ana was also saying,That is enough, Manong. Appellant angrily turned to Ireneo, telling him not to interfere or else he might also be implicated. Ireneo hurriedly went away after that. Ireneo did not see his father-in-law, Dino, at the time of the incident and did not know where Dino was. Orlando interposed self-defense while his father, Dino, denied any complicity in the killing. He said that it was his son who had killed the victim. Thereafter, Dino was brought to the police station for custodial investigation.Further, Jacalne testified that appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr., was not at the scene of the crime during their investigation. But upon their return to the police station, appellant was already there. The trial court convicted Orlando Guerrero, Jr. of murder while his father Dino was acquitted. Issue:Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and/or outraging and scoffing the corpse in order to classify the killing as murder despite failure of the prosecution to allege the same in the information Decision:The information alleges the qualifying circumstances of (1) treachery and(2) evident premeditation. It also states that there was cruelty in the perpetration of the crime, where there was deliberate and inhuman suffering of the victim and the offender had scoffed at the victims corpse. On treachery and evident premeditation, the trial court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the requirements of the law.[we hold that in the present case, the trial court did not err when it found neither treachery nor evident premeditation. However, the trial court found there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder. PEOPLE v BALGOS FACTS: Balgos was accused of raping a 6-year old child named Criselle. While the victim was playing, the accused asked his nieces to go outside and buy cheese curls. When they left, the accused opened his zipper and made Criselle hold his penis. The 2 girls came back and he asked them to go out and buy more cheese curls. When they left, he locked the door and had carnal knowledge with Criselle. The accused cannot penetrate the victims organ. The lower court convicted the accused of qualified rape. Facts: Ladjaalam 30 years old, occupation is smuggling Appellant Ladjaalam was charged and convicted by the Regional trial Court of Zamboanga City of the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant. Under the same circumstance, he was likewise charged and convicted for the crime Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition penalized under PD1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294. September 24, 1997; Rio Hondo, Zamboanga Several policemen were trying to serve him a search warrant, he started firing at them with his unlicensed firearm (rifle); there were also old women in the house of Ladjaalam so the police had a difficult time firing at him 4 Informations filed: 1. 2. 3. 4. maintaining a den for the use of regulated drugs illegal possession of firearms and ammunition multiple attempted murder with direct assault illegal possession of drugs

RTC of Zamboanga: Guilty Issues: WON he can be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms (WON appellant can be convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearm under RA 8294when he used said firearm in the commission in the crime.) Held: 1.) He cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms 2.) Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault. Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense.

Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months to 6 years of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, for which he was correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua Ratio: We cannot accept either of these interpretations because they ignore the plain language of the statute. A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294s simple language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.[i][63] Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested. If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.