Rodriguez, Justine Louise F. People vs. Mendoza et al G.R. No.

L-1797 June 30, 1949 Facts: In the night of July 13, 1946, the six defendants had set out to rob, the defendant Mendoza being armed with a .45-caliber pistol and four of the other defendants with a carbine each. As they came near Jose Evangelista's house, Mendoza asked appellant, who lived in those parts, if they could get anything from there ("makakatipak ba tayo dian?"), and assured that they could, the group went to the said house and tried to gain entrance by calling the owner and asking for some oil or an electric light bulb. As they were told that they could have neither of these, they asked that the door be opened, saying that they wanted to speak to the owner. There they asked the couple for money and Jose Evangelista gave them 20 pesos saying that that is all he has. Mendoza not believing him persisted to give more money. Jose Evangelista and Epifania Coedero told them to take anything from the house, while the others looked into the bedroom and other doors the appellant, Felipe Suizo guide Remedios cordero to the living room, soon they have heard gunshots from the bedroom where Mendoza and the couple was. Those accused were Rafael Mendoza, Felipe Suizo, Andres de Mesa, and three others who, at the time of the trial, had not yet been apprehended. Andres de Mesa turned state witness and was excluded from the information. Rafael Mendoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Declining to make the same plea, Felipe Suizo went to trial, he demanded that he wasnt the one who killed the couple. Issue: Whether or not Felipe Suizo and the others except for Rafael Mendoza is also a principal in the said robbery and homicide? Held: Yes. There can be no doubt as to appellant's participation as principal in the commission of the robbery in question, it appearing from the evidence that he was the one who led the gang to the house of the deceased spouses, was the one who informed them that they could get something from there, and was also the one who asked the inmates of the house to open the door. In addition, he was the one who watched Remedios Cordero in the dining room while his companions were ransacking the house. And being a participant in the robbery, he can not escape liability for the killing of the spouses just because he did not actually take part in the killing, there being no proof that he had made any endeavor to prevent it.

People Vs. Maneya G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 Facts: At about 9 o'clock in the evening of December 9, 1946, Pedro Bele was stabbed by Daniel Magnaye when the appellant came to the deceased house to buy some cigarette. He managed to cry out to ask for help to his brother Catalino Estrada but the appellant ran right after stabbin the deceased. His brother immediately stood up and pursued the feeling assailant but failed to overtake him, and so he came back to the house where he and Aurelia Escritor, the wife of Bele, attended the latter. They reported it to the lieutenant of the barrio, and the lieutenant immediately proceeded to Pedro Beles house. The deceased had managed to identify his stabber and reported it to the police, he said that his family knows the stabber well and was very familiar to him, was corroborated not only by the testimony of the deceased's wife, Aurelia Escritor, and brother Catalino Estrada, who also knew the defendant beforehand and recognized him then because there was sufficient light in the room where the offense was committed, but also by the testimony of Graciano Laraquel, the husband of a sister of the appellant's wife, who was with him when the crime was commited. The appellant said that he was not the one who killed the deceased but Graciano Laraquel. The appellant presented witnesses Adriano Eroles and Honorio Abendan who corroborated the former's testimony only to having seen Laraquel pass in front of Eroles' house going toward Pedro Bele's store on the night of December 9, 1946. The testimony of this witness for the defense is, not only incredible prima facie in itself, but it is contradicting to the statement of the deceased wife and his brother. It is not believable that the deceased as well as Aurelia and Catalino could have been mistaken in the identity of the assailant for, aside from the fact that the place was sufficiently lighted, the final blows were inflicted in the room where Aurelia and Catalino were at the time, and the appellant was well known to all of them. Issue: Whether or not the appellant should be credited by mitigating circumstances for lack of instruction and that the aggravating circumstances of dwelling is present in the commission of the crime Held: there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in thecommission of the crime. The Solicitor General is right in that the trial court erred in taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction; but the lower court did not err in not taking into account the aggravating circumstances pointed out by the Solicitor General. The combination house and store where the crime was committed cannot, obviously 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.