VALENZUELA V. People of the Philippines Facts: (Tinga, J.

) The case stems from an Information charging petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft. On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00. Petitioner and Calderon were first brought to the SM security office before they were transferred on the same day to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police, Quezon City, for investigation. It appears from the police investigation records that apart from petitioner and Calderon, four (4) other persons were apprehended by the security guards at the scene and delivered to police custody at the Baler PNP Station in connection with the incident. However, after the matter was referred to the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor, only petitioner and Calderon were charged with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor, in Informations prepared on 20 May 1994, the day after the incident.

In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum. The RTC found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and established the convictions on the positive identification of the accused as perpetrators of the crime. Issue: WON petitioner Valenzuela is guilty only of frustrated theft. Held: Petition dismissed. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Dio and Flores rulings, his petition must be denied, for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative intent. Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. Rodolfo Velasco vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 166479 February 28, 2006 Facts: (Chico-Nazario) on April 19, 1998, at 7:30 am, complainant Frederick Maramba was cleaning his owner-type jeep when a tricycle stopped near him. Rodolfo Velasco got out, approached Maramba, and then shot at him, wounding him on his upper left arm. He continued shooting even though Maramba was running away from him, but he missed. He went back to the tricycle and told the driver to go to Brgy. Banaoang in Calasiao. The incident was reported to the police, who pursued the accused and caught up with him. Frederick Maramba, complainant, and

Armando Maramba (AM for brevity), the tricycle driver, both identified him as the one responsible. According to AM, he was picked up by the accused, ordered him to go to the place where the complainant was, then got out and fired at complainant, went back to the tricycle, ordered him to go to Calasiao, then alighted and took another tricycle. This testimony reinforced the earlier statement given by complainant. The defense of the accused was that on April 18, 1998, stayed at the house of a friend in Lingayen, Pangasinan. He left tomorrow morning, April 19, at between 6:00 to 7:00, riding a Volkswagen car of one Berting Soriano, dropping him off at Banaoang diversion road. He took a tricycle to the foot of the bridge in Bayambang. While on the way to Calasiao, he was stopped by three men, with guns pointed at him, who introduced themselves as police. They brought him back to the police station, interrogated him (accused denied having fired at complainant), and put him in the Dagupan City Jail. Issue: WON the defenses of denial and alibi are enough to warrant acquittal of the accused WON the conviction of the accused should be for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE only, not ATTEMPTED MURDER Held: Petition denied. Decision of trial court and CA is herby affirmed. Ruling: No. The testimonies given by the complainant and Armando Maramba are enough to warrant conviction of the accused. His alibi was not at all strong, as his said whereabouts during the time of the crime was merely 10 minutes away; therefore it is not impossible for him to go to the place where the shooting commenced. No matter how he denies having taken part in the shooting, no matter what alibi he thinks of, the statements of eyewitnesses will always be held credible. It was positive identification coming from two eyewitnesses; therefore his denial and alibi cannot stand. No. One of the pre-requisites of murder is treachery, wherein there is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the

part of the victim. The complainant was washing his jeep until suddenly the accused fired at him for no reason at all. Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other that his own desistance, the accused committed an attempted felony. With a sudden attack of seven shots, it was held that he had the intent to kill, but failed to perform all acts of execution because of reasons independent of his will (i.e. poor aim and swiftness of the complainant while running). Although attaining a wound on his left arm, it was not sufficient to cause death, thereby making it only attempted. RIVERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006 Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, Edgardo Rivera Respondent: People of the Philippines (Ruben Rodil) Facts: (CALLEJO, SR., J.:) One afternoon Ruben Rodil went to a store to buy food. Edgardo mocked him of being jobless and dependent to his wife, which resulted to a heated exchange of words. The next day when Ruben, together with his 3 year old daughter, went to the store again to buy food and look for his wife; suddenly, Esmeraldo and his two brothers emerged from their house and ganged up on Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael mouled Ruben with fist blows and while he fell to the ground and in helpless position Edgardo hit Ruben with cement hollow blocks in the head 3 times, while Esmeraldo and Ruben continued mauling Ruben. A policeman on board a mobile car arrived Edgardo, Esmeraldo, and Ruben fled to their house. Ruben was brought to the hospital and his attending physician declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds in the head, cerebral concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper buttocks and other superficial injuries. The doctor declared that the lacerated wound in the head was slight and superficial and would heal from one day to seven days. The Rivera brothers testified a different story, that Ruben arrived at Esmeraldos house and banged the gate. Ruben challenged him and his brothers came out and fight. When Esmeraldo came out to talked to Ruben, he punched him. They wrestled and fell to the ground, and during the process Rubens head hit the lamp post. And when his wife arrived they leave.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder sentencing them to an imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years with civil indemnity of P30,000.00. The accused appealed to the CA and the CA modified the RTCs decision that the accused was guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to 6 years and 1 day and all other decisions of the RTC was affirmed. The accused petitioned with the Supreme Court alleging that the prosecution failed to prove that they had the intention to kill Ruben when they mauled and hit him with a hollow block. They also said that based on the testimony of the attending physician of Ruben, he only sustained superficial wounds; hence, they should only be held criminally liable for physical injuries. Furthermore they also contend that even if they had the intent to kill Ruben, the prosecution failed to prove treachery; hence, they should only be held guilty of attempted homicide. Issue: Whether or not the accused should held guilty of physical injuries or attempted homicide only. Held: The decision of the CA was affirmed with modification that petitioners should suffer an indeterminate penalty of 2 years imprisonment as minimum to 9 years and 4 months as maximum. Ruling: On the first assigned error that the prosecution failed to proved the petitioners intent to kill Ruben: according to the attending physician, Ruben could have been killed if the hollow block directly hit his head, and if the police did not arrived which caused the Rivera siblings to scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but the intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the 3 brothers helped each other too maul the defenseless victim, and even after he had fallen to the ground; that one of them picked up a cement hollow block and hit Ruben on the head 3 times, and that it was only the arrival of the policemen that made the 3 brothers to desist from their concerted act of trying to kill Ruben. And also based on the testimonies of the witnesses, it was revealed the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of the petitioners.

The petitioners also contends that the victim sustained only superficial injuries and, thus, not life threatening. The Supreme Court held that the nature of injury does not negate the intention to kill. Even if Edgardo did not hit the victim squarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder. The last paragraph of Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus: There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous deistance. The Supreme Court also rejects the petitioners contention that the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the commission of the felony. Petitioners attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as Ruben was walking with his 3 year old daughter, without knowledge of the imminent peril to his life. He had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of the 3 siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the victim. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery. Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the heated exchange of words between him and petitioner Edgardo Rivera a day before. There being conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them. Adelmo Perez y Agustin, petitioner vs Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondent G.R. No. 143838 May 9, 2002 Facts: Petitioner has been convicted by the trial court for attempted rape. On his appeal, the Court of appeals only affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this petition. On April 14, 1988 in Morong, Bataan, petitioner Adelmo Perez (uncle of Julita ) forcibly commenced the commission of the crime of rape upon Julia Tria y Balagao. The petitioner entered the room of Julita Tria without permission and once inside, embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast and compelled her to lie down where he kissed her lips and neck. He positioned himself on top of her and with the intent of having carnal knowledge with her, he touched her sex organ and tried to remove her panties thereby commencing the commission of the

crime of rape directly by overt acts. Thereafter, Julita Tria shouted inay, trying to implore the help of her mother. Julitas mother came crashing to the room and found Perez under the bamboo bed. Issue/s: Whether or not the crime committed by the petitioner was an attempted rape or an act of lasciviousness; and Whether or not the prosecution was able to present a quantum proof necessary to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Held: The petitioners acts of lying on top of Julita, embracing and kissing her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ do not constitute attempted rape since there was no forced entry of the penis to Julitas sex organ. The medical examination conducted on Julita Tria presented no evidence of any insertion or penetration of her sexual organ, only bruises. The act merely constitutes an act of lasciviousness, the elements of which are: 1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness 2. (a)that it is done by forece and intimidation or (b)when the offended party is deprived of reason otherwise unconscious, or (c)when the offended party is under 12 years of age 3. that the offended party is another person of either sex. The act of Adelmo Perez satisfies all the elements for an act of lasciviousness. His contention that what he committed was not an attempted rape but merely an act of lasciviousness is meritorious. Wherefore, the decisions of the lower courts are modified. Adelmo Perez is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness as defined and penalized under Art. 366 of the RPC punishable by 6 months of arresto mayor. PEOPLE V. ALMAZAN, G.R. Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001, 365 SCRA 373 Facts: (Bellosillo,J) On 28 September 1996, at about 4:00pm, Vicente Madriaga and a certain Allan played chess. In that scenario Noli with her daughter, Noel and their neighbor Angel Soliva were also there. While the game was ongoing, Henry Almazan unexpectedly arrived and brandished a .38 caliber revolver in front of the group. Almazan's fighting cocks had just been stolen and he suspected Angel, one of the spectators,

to be the culprit. Thus he said, "manos-manos na lang tayo," aimed his gun at Angel and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed. At that moment, Vicente Madriaga stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but he refused to be pacified. Angel ran away and Henry aimed his gun instead at Noli. Noli cried for mercy, for his life and that of his daughter, but to no avail. Henry shot Noli at the left side of his stomach sending him immediately to the ground. His daughter, unscathed, held on to Noli, crying. Henry then turned on Noel and shot him on the left thigh. Noel managed to walk lamely but only to eventually fall to the ground. Thereafter, Vicente Madriaga called on his neighbors who brought Noli and Noel to the hospital. Noli however died before reaching the hospital, while Noel survived his injuries. Witnesses for the defense narrated a different version which in favor in the side of Almazan. Almazan also stated that he just did self-defense, but his testimony and his friend testimony (Johnald Molina) were not accepted. Issue: *WON Almazan committed murder, frustrated murder or attempted murder? *WON Almazan testimony can be consider as a self-defense. Held: *Almazan committed murder. Frustrated murder is modified by lowering the crime to Attempted Murder. *Almazans statement that what he did is just a self-defense shows no merit. Ruling: Accused should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated murder. For the charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sustain a fatal wound that could have caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance. The court a quo anchored its ruling on the statement of Dr. Ticman on cross-examination that the wound of Noel could catch infection or lead to his death if not timely and properly treated. However, in his direct testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that the

wound was a mere minor injury for which Noel, after undergoing treatment, was immediately advised to go home. He even referred to the wound as a slight physical injury that would heal within a week and for which the victim was in no danger of dying. Clear as the statement is, coupled with the fact that Noel was indeed immediately advised to go home as he was not in any danger of death, we have no reason to doubt the meaning and implications of Dr. Ticman's statement. His statement that Noel could catch infection was based on pure speculation rather than on the actual nature of the wound which was a mere minor injury, hence, not fatal. According to jurisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an injury that was not fatal, and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted. PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN En Banc Unanimous Decision 329 SCRA 270, G.R. No. 129433 30 March 2000 Facts: (J. Bellosillo) As Corazon is preparing drinks, she heard her daughter, Crysthel, crying Aray ko! Aray Ko! prompting Corazon to run upstairs. She saw Primo Campuhan kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas were already removed while his short pants were down to his knees. Primo ran but was apprehended. Physical Examination revealed negative results. No sign of entry in Crysthels organ. Although Primo insisted on his innocence, the trial court found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death, and ordered him to pay the victim damages and costs. Campuhan assails the credibility of Corazon. He argues that her narration should not be given any weight since it contains improbabilities inconsistent with human nature and experience. He claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to commit the rape considering that Crysthel's younger sister was also in the room playing while Corazon was just downstairs preparing drinks for her daughters. Their presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact that the episode happened within the family compound where a call for assistance could easily be heard and responded to, would have been enough to deter him from committing the crime. Hence this petition. Issue: WON Primo is guilty of consummated or attempted rape. Held:

The Decision of the Court finding primo guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him death and to pay damages was modified. The SC found him guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced him imprisonment of 8 years. Ruling: Rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Perfect penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, was sufficient. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage. Complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Where entry into the labia or the lips of the female genitalia has not been established, the crime committed amounts merely to attempted rape. The SC seriously doubted on the veracity of Corazons claim that she saw the intergenital contact between Primo and Crysthel. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish how Corazon could have seen the sexual contact. The prosecution failed in this respect, thus the SC cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact was achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve the doubt in favor of the prosecution but to prejudice the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. Although a child's testimony must be received with due consideration on account of her tender age, the Court endeavors at the same time to harness only what in her story appears to be true, acutely aware of the equally guaranteed rights of the accused. Even on the basis of the testimony of Crysthel alone the accused cannot be held liable for consummated rape; worse, be sentenced to death. In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both should in all respects complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape will significantly disappear.

Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted rape and only of attempted rape are present in the instant case, hence, the accused should be punished only for it.

school she asked a guard where the clinic was. When she got to the clinic, no one was there. On her way out, Whiazel walked with her at arms length. She did not hold the childs hand, not looked at the child, they did not talk, not even smiles were exchanged. Then Cecilia suddenly came up accusing her of kidnapping. Cecilia dragged her to the guidance counselors office and she voluntarily went with her. When the guidance counselor asked Whiazel if the accused was really going to kidnap her, she answered no. Lending credence to the testimony of the witnesses, the trial court rendered accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor. Accused contended that her act of holding the child by hand and leading her out of the school cannot be considered kidnapping. Whiazel even testified she voluntarily went with her and that she did not try t kidnap her. The guidance counselor confirmed that outsiders can consult in the schools clinic thus she had a valid reason to be there. The people, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that Whaizel was still deprived of her liberty no matter how short that time was because the accused prevented Whaizel to go to her neighbor. Considering the young age of the victim, deprivation of liberty was really consummated even without force or threats imposed. Issue: Whether or not RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of kidnapping and illegal detention of a minor and granting 50,000 pesos as moral damages Held: In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latters liberty needs to be established by INDUBITABLE PRROF Well entrenched rule that factual findings by the court, especially testimony of witnesses, are accorded great respect. But when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, THE COURT MAY CHOOSE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN FINDINGS. Damages are granted to compensate victim for the injury suffered, but PROOF OR MORAL SUFFERING must be introduced.

People vs. De la Cruz Facts: Accused Rosemarie de la Cruz was caught holding by the hand Whiazel Soriano, a seven-year old schoolgirl, and leading her out of the school grounds. At the request of the principal, five policemen brought accused to the station. Accused pleaded not guilty before the RTC. There were 5 who served as principal witnesses for the prosecution. First was Cecilia Caparos, neighbor of Whiazel. According to her, she was waiting for her two children when she saw Whiazel held on the hand and being led away by Rosemarie. Cecilia asked the accused where she was going with Whiazel. The accused told her that she asked Whiazel to bring her to Rowena Soriano (Whiazles mother) while on the other, Whiazel told her that the accused requested her to look for the latters child. Cecilia grew suspicious because of the inconsistent answers, Whiazels terrified look, and scratches on the childs face. Cecilia then brought accused to the guidance counselor. The accused agreed to go with her. Second was Whiazel Soriano, who testified that she voluntarily went with the accused after being asked for help in looking for the school dentist. She also mentioned that accused asked for help in looking for her child in a place far away from school. She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way by the accused but when she told her that she wanted to go, accused refused and held her hand. Whiazel cried when they reached the teacher. Third was Eufemia Magpantay, guidance teacher of the school. She confirmed that the incident was reported to her office. Accused told her that she was asking for Whiazels help in looking for the school dentist. This reason was reiterated before the principal. Magpantay testified that school allows patients not connected with the school to consult at the clinic. Fourth testimony was from Gorgonia Nieva, mother-in-law of the accused. She testified that the day prior to the incident, accused asked her to look for Dr. Medina, a dentist, because the latters child was sick. Her inquiries that Dr. Medina may be found at the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School (place of incident). Thus, the next day, they both went to that school but parted ways when they arrived there. And lastly, the accused gave her own testimony. She testified that when she got to the

Decision: decision modified. Accused is guilty of ATTEMPTED kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Award for moral damages of 50,000 pesos is hereby deleted. G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEAGO, ROGER BEDAO, RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused. SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEAGO and ROGER BENDAO, accused-appellants. BELLOSILLO, J.: FACTS: The Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao, conferred with Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato, and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards plan to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino Robles, a Catholic lay leader; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead. At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil), Edilberto Manero together with Norberto Manero, Jr. shot Robles. They surrounded the house of Domingo Gomez where Robles fled and hid, but later left when Edilberto Manero told them to leave as Robles would die of hemorrhage. At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr. burned the motorcycle. And later stood guard with their firearms ready on the road, Edilberto

Manero shot to death Fr. Favali. Finally, they joined Norberto Manero, Jr. and Edilberto Manero in their enjoyment and merriment on the death of the priest. The court found the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder;Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Arson; Norberto Manero, Jr., alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted Murder. In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao contend that the trial court erred in disregarding their respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to establish that there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was Fr. Peter Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one (1) gunman, Edilberto; and, that there was absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim despite their proximity at the time to Edilberto. ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the defenses of alibi of the appellants. HELD: Accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines and Roger Bedao alleged that they were no present in the cime and contend that it was only after they heard gunshots that they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr.and joined by their fellow CHDF members and co-accused, and that it was only then that they proceeded together to where the crime took place at Km. 125. But, two witnesses appeared and testified that they saw and heard the discussion about killing of some communist sympathizers. They also testified that they still saw the appellants in the company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when Rufino Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon, appellants were very much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero brothers, when Fr. Favali was brutally murdered. So the alibis of the appellants were negative in nature and cannot be prevail. Also, there was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy. RULING: The act of one is the act of all. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it It is not

essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present. AFFIRMED PEOPLE V. PUGAY 167 SCRA 439 17 November 1988 Facts: (Medialdea, J.) Pugay and Samson were charged with the crime of Murder for the death of Benjamin Miranda by the CFI. Sometime after midnight of May 19, 1982, Pugay & Samson with several companions arrived at the town fiesta fair. They appeared to be drunk. When the group saw Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, walking nearby, they started making fun of him. They made him dance by tickling him with a piece of wood in his ass. Suddenly, Pugay took a can of gasoline under the ferris wheel and poured its contents on the body of Miranda. Then, Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. The accused attacked the credibility of the eyewitness, Gabion, alleging that he was not only requested by the mother of the deceased to testify in exchange for his absolution from liability but also because his testimony that he was reading a comic book during an unusual event is contrary to human behavior and experience. The accused also contested that they were maltreated by the police into admitting authorship of the crime. The accused also pointed out that there were a lot of other witnesses but why is it that only Gabions statement was presented. Issue: WON the court erred in finding the accused guilty of muder qualified with treachery Held: The judgment is affirmed with modifications indicated below: Ruling:

P13,940 hospitalization P30,000 indemnity for death P10,000 moral damages P5,000 exemplary damages

Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code: A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. There is nothing in the records that shows that there was a precious conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention bet the two accused immediately before the crime. There was no animosity and their meeting at the scene of the crime was accidental. They only want to make fun of the deceased. Pugay and Samson are only liable for the act committed by them. 1. Pugay failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the victim. Pugay is only guilty of HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE under 365 of RPC. Penalty for Pugay: Indeterminate from 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision coreccional maximum. 2. Samson is guilty of Murder (homicide) for setting the victim on fire knowing that gasoline has been poured on the deceased. There is an absence of intent to kill and that his act was just part of their fun-making that evening.

Treachery deliberate attack and employing means to insure its execution removing any form of defense from the offended party. Article IV: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from what is intended.