AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

PAR 13 (EVID PREMEDITATION)

PEOPLE VS DUCABO
FACTS: The evidence for the prosecution consists solely of the testimony of Rolando, the
victims brother. He disclosed that on 24 October 2000, at around 5:45 in the morning, he saw
the appellant walking back and forth, twice, in front of their house at Simeon Street, Fatima
Compound, Las Pias City. At around 6:18 in the morning, while he was sweeping inside their
house, his brother Rogelio, the victim, went out in front of their house also to sweep. When
the victim went out of their house, the appellant was not there. He was five meters away from
his brother. While the victim was sweeping in a stooping position at almost 90 degrees,
the appellant suddenly appeared behind the victim. Appellant was one meter away
from the victim. The appellant then poked a gun and shot the victim once at the back of
his head, a little higher on his nape, causing the latter to fall on the ground.
RTC: Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
CA: affirmed with modif ication the RTC Decision
ISSUE: WON there's E/P?
HELD: NO.
In the case at bar, the attack on the victim was deliberate, sudden and unexpected. The
appellant, surreptitiously and without warning, shot the victim who was at that time unarmed
and completely unaware of any impending danger to his life.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1)
the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating
that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and
execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Like any other
circumstance that qualif ies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by
clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The essence of
premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient
to arrive at a calm judgment. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show the presence of
any of these elements.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01116 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant Junjun Ducabo is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualif ied by treachery. There being no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the appellant is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

PAR 13 (EVID PREMEDITATION)

PEOPLE VS BACABAC
FACTS: In the evening of December 23, 1990, Hernani Quidato (the victim) was at a dance
hall in Purok 4, San Joaquin, Iloilo City in the company of Eduardo Selibio (Eduardo) and
Melchor Selibio (Melchor). And so were Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel Talanquines
(Edzel).

Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Not long after, the victim and his companions also left
and on their way home, they encountered Jonathan and Edzel. It appears that the two groups
then and there figured in a misunderstanding.
On his way home, Jesus Delf in Rosadio (Jesus), who was also at
the dance hall, noticed a commotion. He soon saw that Melchor was hugging Edzel, and
later tying Jonathan with his hands. Still later, he saw the victim hit Edzel with a stick. He
thus told the victim and his companions that Edzel is the son of Councilor Jose Talanquines,
Jr. (Jose), whereupon Eduardo told him (Jesus) to go away for they might shoot him. Jesus
thus left and proceeded to Edzels residence to report to his father what he had witnessed. In
the meantime, Edzel and Jonathan managed to flee.
The victim and his companions thereafter headed for home in the course of which they met
Pat. Ricardo Bacabac (herein petitioner), together with Edzel and Jonathan who are his
nephews, and Edzels father, Jose, his mother, and two sisters at the corner of M.H. Del Pilar
and Sto. Domingo Streets. Petitioner and Jose were carrying M-16 armalites, while Jonathan
and Edzel were carrying a piece of wood and a revolver, respectively.
Jesus thereupon pointed to the victim and his companions as the ones who had manhandled
Jonathan and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that he and his companions mistook
Jonathan and Edzel for other persons. Jesus blurted out, however, You are just bragging that
you are brave. You are only bullying small children. Petitioner, at that instant, fired his
armalite into the air, while Jose fired his armalite (as if spraying his rif le from right to left) at
the victim and Eduardo, even hitting Jonathan in the thigh as he (Jonathan) was on the move
to strike [the victim] with a piece of wood.
Eduardo fell. And so did the victim who was in a kneeling position, and as he was raising his
hands in surrender, Jose shot him again.
Meanwhile, Melchor escaped.
The victim, Eduardo, and Jonathan were brought to the hospital. The victim was pronounced
dead on arrival. Eduardo died two hours later.
By Decision of April 30, 1993, Branch 39 of the Iloilo RTC, finding the presence of
conspiracy among petitioner and his co- accused, convicted them of murder qualif ied by
treachery.
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE: WON there's E/P?

HELD: NO.
Contrary to petitioners assertion, the appellate court did not err in appreciating the presence
of conspiracy despite its finding that there was no evident premeditation. This Courts
pronouncement that conspiracy presupposes the existence of evident premeditation does not
necessarily imply that the conversethat evident premeditation presupposes the existence of
a conspiracyis true. In any event, a link between conspiracy and evident premeditation is
presumed only where the conspiracy is directly established and not where conspiracy is only
implied, as in the present case.

*Treachery, present In the case at bar, petitioner, a policeman, and his co-accused were
armed with two M-16 armalites and a revolver. The victim and his companions were not
armed. The attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was already kneeling in
surrender when he was shot the second time. Clearly, the victim and his companion Eduardo
had no chance to defend themselves or retaliate.
*Vindication of a Grave Offense, absent The offense committed on Edzel was hitting his
ear with a stick (according to Jesus), a bamboo pole (according to Edzel). By Edzels own
clarif ication, [he] was hit at [his] ear, not on [his] head. That act would certainly not be
classif ied as grave offense. And Edzel is petitioners nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity
within the same degree contemplated in Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

PAR 16 (TREACHERY)
PEOPLE VS MAMERTO
FACTS: Emmanuel Sapigao and his brother Gem Sapigao were on their way on board a
motorcycle, driven by Gem Sapigao, towards Zone III of the barangay to collect a
compadres contribution for the Christmas party. When the two brothers reached the place
fronting the residence of barangay captain Arturo Mamerto, Sr., his nephew Reynaldo
Sapigao and Elpidio Mamerto blocked their path. Minutes later, Reynaldo Sapigao, then
holding a carbine rifle, began firing at them. Alarmed, the brothers jumped off the
motorcycle. Gem Sapigao promptly parked the vehicle on one side of the street, and the two
scampered for safety. Emmanuel hid behind a concrete wall, approximately ten to twelve
meters away, while Gem Sapigao hid in the nearby house of a certain Shirley Pisalvo. From
their hiding places, the brothers saw Reynaldo running and shouting, Uncle, uncle, sinugod
si Kapitan. Almost immediately, they then saw Elpidio Mamerto, Verson Mamerto, and Robert
Obillo, all armed trooping into the house of the barangay captain obviously in response to
Reynaldos call. Elpidio Mamerto and Robert Mamerto were both holding M-16 armalite rif les.
Verson Mamerto had a carbine. The barangay captain, Arturo Mamerto, Sr., was armed with a
Caliber .45 pistol. Emmanuel Sapigao heard Arturo Mamerto giving instructions to the group
to shoot anyone who would come near the abandoned motorcycle. Momentarily, Emmanuel
Sapigao saw from his hidden perch his cousin Lauro Sapigao passed by in an owner-type
jeepney. About half an hour later, Lauro Sapigao, together with George Cabanilla and Puroy
Valdez, returned and stopped near the abandoned motorcycle. Emmanuel wanted to warn
Lauro but he was too afraid of being seen. Moments after they alighted from the jeepney, the
group composed of Elpidio Mamerto, Arturo Mamerto, Sr., Verson Mamerto, Robert
Obillo, Amador Sapigao, Jose Sapigao, Reynaldo Sapigao, Francis Sapigao and
Samuel Sapigao rained fire on Lauro Sapigao. Gem Sapigao saw Jose Sapigao fire the
first shot. Amador Sapigao approached the fallen Lauro Sapigao, got hold of the latters
Caliber .45 and, with it, again shot the hapless victim. One of those in the group shouted
One is gone, many more will follow.
Terrif ied at what they had seen, the two brothers, Emmanuel and Gem, ran towards the rice
field and proceeded to the north where they flagged down a tricycle, which took them to the
Asingan police station. Fearing for their lives, the two subsequently went into hiding. It was
only two months later when they finally decided to report the incident to the National Bureau
of Investigation office in San Fernando, La Union.
Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, rendered its decision holding Elpidio
Mamerto guilty of murder and imposing on him the extreme penalty of death
ISSUE: WON there's treachery.

HELD: NO.
The incident that fateful night of 24th of December 1998, from all indications, was not an
isolated occurrence but that it was another scenario in a deep- seated history of violence
between two warring factions in barangay Asingan. Reynaldo Sapigao, upon seeing
Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao, called his cousins and shouted, Uncle, Uncle, sinugod si
kapitan, apparently convinced that the two brothers had come to do them harm. At
Reynaldos alarm call, the cohorts immediately converged, each with a firearm, in a defensive
posture, as if expecting and readying for an armed attack from Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao.
Lauro Sapigao later stopped near the abandoned motorcycle to possibly render succor to his
cousins. No less than Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao had admitted that Lauro was also armed
at that time. It was more likely than not that he somehow anticipated an armed encounter.
These circumstances render doubtful the attendance of treachery in the killing of Lauro
Sapigao.
*Conspiracy, present.
The conspiracy to kill Lauro Sapigao was implicit from the conduct of the assailants. Upon the
call made by Reynaldo Sapigao, the malefactors, including appellant Elpidio Mamerto,
immediately converged at the latters residence. All were carrying firearms. Appellant Elpidio
Mamerto, as well as the rest of the conspirators, appeared to be acquiescent to the
instructions of Arturo Mamerto, Sr., the brother of Elpidio, to shoot at anyone who would come
near the abandoned motorcycle of Gem Sapigao. The succeeding events bespoke of a unity
of and singularity in the design to kill.
*Evident premeditation, absent.
It was unlikely that the assailants knew beforehand that
Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao would pass through the residence of Arturo Mamerto, Sr., that
fateful night, let alone that the deceased Lauro Sapigao would come to their aid. Their
response to what was perceived to be a dangerous situation was immediate, virtually allowing
them no sufficient time to coolly reflect on the consequences of their action. Evident
premeditation was not adequately shown.
PAR 16 (TREACHERY)
PEOPLE vs ABADIES
FACTS: On December 24, 1995, Cecilio Roldan, his wife Cynthia, their son Ronald and
neighbor Salve Aligway were celebrating Christmas Eve at the balcony of their house at
Barangay Cadaohan, Ormoc City. At 2:00 a.m. of Christmas day, Cynthia saw appellant
Bonifacio Abadies, her husbands uncle, approached Cecilio from behind. Without warning,
accused-appellant shot Cecilio with a short firearm about 8 inches in length.
Jose Manuel rushed toward his brothers house fearing that he had been hurt. He recalled
that in the morning of the previous day, accused-appellant had threatened to
kill Cecilio Roldan because of a recent misunderstanding between
them. Jose Manuel arrived at Cecilios house and found the latter wounded.
Cecilio was7rushed to the Ormoc District Hospital, where he
eventually died. According to the victims widow, accused-appellant harbored a
grudge against her husband because he was unable to give him the
additional amount of P10,000.00 for the lease of a rice land owned
by a certain Langkoy Fran in the month of December 1995, a few weeks before the shooting
incident transpired.
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment convicting accused-appellant of the crime
charged and imposing on him the supreme penalty of death, to wit:

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Bonifacio
Abadies GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as the killing was with
treachery and hereby sentences him, after having found the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation in the unrebutted testimony of Jose Manuel Roldan and no mitigating
circumstances being present to offset the same, pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal
Code, with the penalty of DEATH.
The Court further sentences the accused to pay
ISSUE: WON there's treachery.
HELD: YES.
In the case at bar, Cecilio Roldan was in the comforts of his home. He was eating, drinking
and thoroughly engrossed in the gaiety of the yuletide season, while engaged in light banter
with his wife and a neighbor. Suddenly and without warning, he was shot from behind by
accused-appellant, his uncle. As in the recent case of People v. Herrera, accused-appellant
suddenly positioned himself at the back of the unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him
and, without any warning, promptly delivered the fatal shot. The victim was unaware of the
attempt on his life and the danger that lurked behind him. There was no way the victim could
have defended himself, taken flight or avoided the assault. Thus, the attendance of treachery
qualif ied the killing to Murder.
*Evident Premeditation, absent
We take exception to the finding of the trial court that the killing of Cecilio Roldan was
premeditated. Like treachery, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with
equal certainty as the criminal act itself, in order for it to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance. Thus, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time
when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that
he clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect
upon the consequences of his act. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution
of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out
the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused
meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced
by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be
considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be
premeditation but must be evident premeditation.
The second requisite is likewise wanting. The fact that accused-appellant made threats to kill
the victim does not necessarily prove evident premeditation without a showing that accusedappellant performed acts manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination. Accusedappellants threats, unsupported by evidence which would disclose his true criminal state of
mind, will only be construed as casual remarks naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor
and not a resolution of the character involved in evident premeditation. An expression of
hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime. Indeed, Jose Manuel
Roldan, upon whose testimony the finding of evident premeditation is anchored, himself
admitted he did not think accused-appellant would pursue his plan to kill Cecilio. In fact, he
even declared on re-cross examination, Nobody thought that he would carry out his plan.
Suffice it to state that without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter
how logical and probable they might be, would not be enough to sustain a finding of this
aggravating circumstance. In other words, the evidence falls short of proving the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation.

TREACHERY (PAR 16)

PEOPLE vs CENTENO
FACTS: According to Violago, he and Santos, together with their other companions, were in
the store of one Aling Goreng when Patrolman Valeriano Reyes approached Santos and told
the young man to come with him. Santos demurred, protesting that he had done nothing
wrong, whereupon Reyes boxed him in the chest and forcibly brought him to the police
station. There Santos loudly objected to his detention, prompting Police Chief Centeno to say,
Matigas ka yatang talaga, although he relented later and allowed him to go home. But as
Santos was leaving,
Centeno had a change of mind and asked Reyes to bring Santos
back. Reyes was holding Santoss arm when Centeno administered
the first karate blow on the nape of Santoss neck that made the
victim fall forward on the backrest of a bench. This was followed by
two more karate blows that crumpled him to the cement floor where
he lay prostrate and motionless. On Centenos order, two policemen
then picked up Santos and took him inside the locker room adjacent
to the municipal jail. Villanueva corroborated Violago and said he cried out, Why are
you doing this to my friend? when he saw Santos being mauled by Centeno. He also
declared that Santos was felled with three karate blows from Centeno. This witness claimed
he got a glass of water and gave it to Santos, who could not drink it any more as he was
already dying then. He felt Santoss pulse but there was none. He opened Santoss shirt and
put his ear to his chest but could hear no heartbeat. He said that the other persons who
witnessed the killing, besides the policemen, were Violago, Romy Salao and Serafin
Punzalan.
The defense itself submitted that Santos shouted drunkenly within hearing distance of
Centeno and Reyes, Putang inang mga pulis iyan! Walang kuwenta sa akin iyan! They
claimed to be tolerant and simply admonished him to go home, but subsequent events
showed they were really annoyed by his remarks. This was the motive that prompted Reyes
to drag San-tos to the municipal building and led Centeno later to kill him

ISSUE: WON there's treachery?

HELD: YES.
The theory of the defense was that Santos was so intoxicated that
he reeled and fell and hit his head and suffered the internal brain
hemorrhage that killed him. To support this claim, it introduced
Mercedes Bautista, chief forensic chemist of the NBI, who testif ied
that at the time of Santoss death he had 0.21% of alcohol in his
blood. She declared on cross-examination that the effect of such
quantity would vary according to the persons physical condition although there would surely
be emotional instability in every case.
Murder it was indeed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There was alevosia
because Santos was suddenly attacked from behind when in his weakened and intoxicated
condition; coupled with the fact that his arm was then being held by Reyes, he could not
defend himself. The accused-appellant had employed means aimed at achieving his purpose
without risk to himself from any defense the victim could have made.
*Grave provocation and no intent to commit so grave a wrong on the victim, absent

As for the mitigating circumstances claimed by the defense, the Court holds that they cannot
be allowed. The derogatory statement made by Santos which so irritated Centeno did not
constitute such a grave provocation as to warrant the lessening of his penalty for reacting as
he did in punishing the victim to death.
*No intention to commit so grave a wrong, absent.
Neither can Centeno argue now that he had not intended to commit so grave a wrong as the
actual killing of Santos as he knew, or should have known, that the karate chops on the nape
of the neck would have a lethal effect upon the defenseless and drunken victim.
*Abuse of superior strength, absorbed by treachery.
Even assuming there was abuse of superior strength, on which issue we do not have to rule
here, this aggravating circumstance is deemed absorbed by treachery.
TREACHERY (PAR 16)
PEOPLE vs NABONG
FACTS: The four accused, Celino Nabong (Nabong), Alvin Laguit (Laguit), Nolfe Ladiao
(Ladiao) and Arnel Miraflor (Miraflor), were all construction workers employed as steelmen by
EEI, a construction firm, and assigned at its OCW-RCBC Plaza Project located at Ayala
Avenue, Makati City.
The victim, AAA was a 22-year old accountant employed as junior auditor at the Alba and
Romeo Auditing Firm.
Reynaldo Patenio, a steelman of EEI construction and a coworker of the accused, testif ied
that on the fateful night of 23 March 1999, at about 9:00 oclock in the evening, he and the
four accused, together with their co-workers, Rogelio Amit, Lilia and Ariel Cortez, were inside
the workers barracks at the OCW-RCBC Plaza when they decided to go out for a drinking
session. They walked from their barracks and at about 9:15 p.m. reached a nearby videoke
bar in Amorsolo Street in Makati City, just across the Makati Medical Center. There, each of
them consumed six bottles of Colt 45 beer.
By 11:30 p.m., they stopped drinking when the videoke bar closed for the night. Rogelio Amit,
Lilia and Ariel Cortez left ahead of the group. The four accused proceeded to Ayala Avenue
and stopped at a vacant lot in front of the Makati Medical Center, where concrete pipes used
for construction were lying around. Reynaldo Patenio, who decided to call it a day, also
stepped out of the videoke bar and was just about five meters away from the four accused,
when they invited him to join them. When Reynaldo Patenio joined the group, they taunted
him and made fun of him by pushing him around like a ball being tossed from one man to
another.
Patenio was able to extricate himself from the group and was about to leave when he heard
one of the accused saying loudly Huwag nayan, lagas nayan, which was directed at a
woman who was then boarding a jeepney. The word lagas means old in the Visayan dialect.
At about the same time, AAA was walking towards the center island near the corner of
Buendia Avenue and Ayala Avenue with her officemate Minerva Arguelles Frias. Laguit and
Ladiao, who were then standing by the corner of Ayala Avenue and Buendia Avenue, spotted
the two women. Therefrom, Laguit and Ladiao crossed the street and waited at the island for
the two women. Minerva Arguelles Frias then boarded a bus, leaving AAA alone with Laguit
and Ladiao.
Laguit took his shirt off and was laughing while waving his shirt in the air. Ladiao, who was
between Laguit and AAA, had a smirk on his face. Nabong then appeared from the dark

portion of the vacant lot holding a kabilya, a 7-inch pointed metal bar, sort of an improvised
iced pick, and approached Laguit, Ladiao and AAA. Nabong suddenly stabbed AAA on the
right thigh using the pointed metal bar. Simultaneously, Ladiao jumped at AAA and covered
her mouth. The victim slumped on the pavement while Ladiao, Laguit, Nabong and Miraflor
crowded around the woman. Miraflor, upon seeing what his companions were doing, hurriedly
left and went to the barracks. Patenio also left the scene and went back to the barracks about
the same time Miraflor did.
The trial court subsequently rendered a decision dated 18 June 2002, finding Celino Nabong,
in conspiracy with Alvin Laguit and Nolfe Ladiao, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
special complex crime of Attempted Rape with Homicide under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. For
insufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction, Arnel Miraflor was acquitted
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on 9 September 2005
affirming the conviction of appellants, with modif ication.
Appellants assert that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating treachery
since the evidence is bereft of proof that appellants plotted to carry out the attack on the
victim.
ISSUE:
HELD: The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Thus, this Court has ruled
that even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim
is unarmed. Treachery can still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the
danger to his/her person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.
In the present case, the victim did not even have sufficient warning of the danger that was
looming, since the attack against her came from behind and was so sudden and unexpected,
thus giving the victim no time to flee or to prepare her defense or enable her to offer the least
resistance to the sudden assault.
*Intoxication as Mitigating Circumstance, absent.
The records are bereft of any evidence that the quantity of liquor they had taken was of such
quantity as to affect their mental faculties. On the contrary, the fact that appellants could recall
details of what had transpired after their drinking session is the best proof that they knew what
they were doing during that occasion. The deception, the device, the place and manner of
perpetrating the crime all point to the fact that appellants had complete control of their minds.
*Illiteracy as Mitigating Circumstance, absent.
Neither can appellant Nabongs alleged lack of instruction be appreciated in his favor.
Illiteracy alone will not constitute such circumstance; it must be accompanied by lack of
sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full signif icance of ones act. Besides, one does
not have to be educated or intelligent to be able to know that it is unlawful to take the life of
another person.

TREACHERY (PAR 16)

PEOPLE vs GUZMAN
FACTS: Man is subject to innumerable pains and sorrows by the very condition of humanity,
and yet, as if nature had not sown evils enough in life, we are adding grief to grief and
aggravating the common calamity by our cruel treatment of one another. Joseph Addison
(huhuhu) The passage depicts the tragic fate of the deceased victim in the case at bar. His
ultimate dream was to become a pilot so that he would have enough money to shoulder the
schooling and education expenses of his younger siblings. Sadly, however, this dream will
never become a reality as his young life was brutally snuffed out by certain violent individuals.
He was a minor at the time of his death. Now his family is seeking justice for his untimely and
senseless killing. (huhuhuhuhu)
After eating, Ronald (the witness) sat on a bench just beside the carinderia and rested. He
noticed appellant and two other persons having a drinking spree in a nearby grocery store. He
also saw Michael walking towards the direction of the same grocery store. When Michael was
passing in front of the grocery store, appellant and his two companions suddenly approached
and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the back of Michael while his two
companions stood in front of Michael. Suddenly, they grabbed the shoulders of Michael and
overpowered the latter. One of appellants companions, whom he
described as a male with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly
stabbed Michael at the stomach. Afterwards, the appellants other
companion, whom he described as a male with flat top hair, took the
knife from the companion with long hair, and also stabbed Michael
at the stomach. Later, appellant went in front of Michael, took the
knife from the companion with flat top hair, and likewise stabbed
Michael at the stomach. Appellant also kicked Michael when the
latter was already lying on the ground. He witnessed this stabbing incident at a distance of
five arms length.
RTC found accused-appellant Nicolas Guzman y Bocbosila guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder.
CA affirmed with modif ication RTC.
ISSUE: WON there's treachery.
HELD: YES.
Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the circumstances that renders the victim
unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the
attack. It is an aggravating circumstance that qualif ies the killing of a person to murder. Article
14, paragraph (16) of the Revised Penal Code states the concept and essential elements of
treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus: ART. 14. The following are aggravating
circumstances: x x x x 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). 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.

The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people were
walking then in different directions does not negate treachery. It should be made clear that the
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without
the slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and the
victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to
put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists. As
we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking and not provoking anyone to a fight
when he was stabbed to death by appellant and his two companions. Further, Michael
was a minor at the time of his death while appellant and his two companions were
adult persons.
*Evident Premeditation, absent
In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show that appellant and his two companions had
previously planned and reflected in killing Michael. When appellant and his two companions
saw Michael on that fateful night, they immediately pounced on him. The thought of killing
Michael came into the minds of appellant and his two companions only when they saw
Michael walking on the road. Indeed, the killing of Michael was sudden and unplanned.
TREACHERY (PAR 16)
PEOPLE vs CASELA
FACTS: At around 10:00 oclock in the evening of 2 January 2003,
Makabenta, the victim Rain and three (3) other friends started their
drinking spree in Barangay Sawang, Carigara, Leyte.
Later, at around 3:00 oclock the following morning, Rain excused himself from the ongoing
drinking session in order to buy cigarettes from Naglor Videoke in the next barangay as all the
stores in Barangay Sawang were already closed.
When the victim did not return, Makabenta decided to go to Naglor Videoke himself. As he
approached that establishment, located within the premises of the public market of Barangay
Baybay, Makabenta saw Rain being attacked by Insigne and appellant as Rain was about
to ride his bike. Makabenta was about three (3) meters away from Rain when he witnessed
the latter being successively stabbed by both malefactors. Although Rain was able to run
away after the initial assault, he was pursued by Insigne and appellant. In the course of the
chase, Makabenta testif ied, Insigne was able to grab the back neckline of Rains shirt,
turning the latter towards him as the two accused proceeded to deliver more stabbing blows
on Rain until Rain fell to the ground. Afraid to get involved, witness Makabenta left the
scene and reported the incident to the nearest police station. Thereafter, he returned to
Barangay Sawang and told their friends about what
had transpired, including the fact that Rain had died
RTC rendered judgment against appellant on 10 February 2004. With the appreciation of the
aggravating circumstances of conspiracy, treachery and nighttime, and without any mitigating
circumstance
With the death penalty imposed on appellant, the case was elevated to this Court on
automatic review. Appellate court rendered its decision affirming with modif ication appellants
conviction
ISSUE:
HELD:

As RTC ruled.. With the number, location and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim
Ronaldo Rain, there is apparent treachery in the execution of the dastardly acts by the
perpetrators. The victim was unarmed and totally defenseless, without any opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate against the accused, could be gleaned from the fact that accused
Artemio Casela, Jr.
and Felibert Insigne did not suffer even a single scratch on their body after the stabbing
incident.
In concurring with the RTC that the killing was qualified by treachery, the appellate
court made this pronouncement, thus
x x x Gleaned from the testimony of Makabenta, the deceased was unarmed and about to
ride his bicycle when he was suddenly and successively stabbed by Insigne and then the
accused-appellant also joined
in the stabbing of the deceased. The deceased tried to run but he was chased and was
successfully overtaken by the two assailants. Insigne and the accused-appellant successfully
stabbed the deceased until the latter fell to the ground.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the deceased was clearly not in any position to defend
himself from the sudden and unexpected attack of the accused-appellant and Insigne. These
circumstances are manifestly indicative of the presence of the conditions under which
treachery may be appreciated, i.e., the employment of means of execution that gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and that said means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.
We find the rulings of the RTC and CA amply supported by the evidence on record. Treachery
attended the stabbing of Rain because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and
sudden. He had no means and there was no time for him to defend himself. The prosecution
was able to establish that appellants attack on the victim was without any slightest
provocation on the latters part and that it was sudden and unexpected. This is a clear case of
treachery. There being treachery, appellants conviction for murder is in order.
The trial court and the appellate court, in convicting appellant of murder, ruled that the killing
was qualif ied by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to
directly and specially insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. To establish treachery, two elements must
concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself,
and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. In this case, treachery
was already present when appellant and Insigne, armed each with a bolo, approached the
victim and suddenly stabbed him. Rain did not have the faintest idea that he was vulnerable
to an attack, considering that he was boarding his bicycle, oblivious of the sinister intent of
appellant and Insigne. The fact that the victim was facing his malefactors at the time of the
latters attack did not erase its treacherous nature. Even if the assault were frontal, there was
treachery if it was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his
defense.

TREACHERY (PAR 16)

PEOPLE vs TAAN

FACTS: The prosecution sought to prove that on 18 July 1999, the witness Ochinang, a
Barangay Kagawad and relative of the deceased, was at Mariano Domaoals (Mariano) house
in Sitio Obbog, San Maria, Binalonan, Pangasinan having a drinking spree with Mariano,
Romeo Domaoal, Mario Rivera, Eduardo Taan, Danilo Marquez, Marlon Ruar and Romeo
Tacadena. At around 4:30 p.m., Taan invited the group to continue their drinking session at his
house in Sitio Obbog, Barangay Dumayat of the same town. Ochinang, Marquez, Tacadena
and Ruar accepted the invitation and on their way to Taans house, they met Ladaga.
Surprised, Taan told his godfather, Tacadena, this is the one we are looking for, he was the
one who robbed the school. Taan continued to say, Take him, Ninong, Danny because I
have been looking for that guy. Tacadena and Marquez took hold of Ladaga and carried him
towards a mango tree. To force Ladaga to confess to the crime of stealing, which he later did,
Marquez tied Ladagas hands with a palm leaf while Taan held the latters legs. Marquez then
struck Ladagas forehead with a big stone.
Taan removed Ladagas shirt to wipe the
blood off the latters face. At around 8:00 p.m., Ladaga was brought inside Taans house.
Afterwards, Taan asked Tacadena and Ruar to go home. Between midnight to 1:00 a.m.,
Marquez, who had with him a shovel, and Taan, armed with a gun, brought Ladaga to a two
(2) foot-deep irrigation canal at Barangay Canarvacanan. Thereat, Ladaga was made to lie
down and Taan poked a gun in his mouth and fired it four (4) times. Ochinang, then at the
dike of the irrigation canal, about a meter away from the scene, witnessed the incident and
how Taan buried Ladaga in the irrigation canal. Two days later, Taan summoned Ochinang to
dig a deeper burial site for Ladaga because of the foul odor coming from the original
gravesite. Nonetheless, it was Taan who dug a deeper site which was more or less six (6)
meters from the original site. Taan removed Ladagas body from the original gravesite and
transferred it to the new excavation.
The prosecution likewise presented a certification dated 25 April 2000 from the Firearms
and Explosives Division of the PNP stating that Taan is not a licensed/registered firearm
holder of any kind and caliber per verif ication from available records with this office as of this
date.
Taan was found guilty as charged and the judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court
for automatic review.
ISSUE: WON there's treachery.
HELD:YES.
Treachery clearly attended the killing as Ladaga, pinned down by Taan, was tipsy when he
was killed, and thus was enfeebled and did not have full control of his senses. Previously,
Ladagas hands had been tied and his forehead had been struck with a stone. With Marquez
carrying a shovel and Taan armed with a gun, the unarmed, weakened Ladaga was clearly
defenseless. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes with out warning and in a
swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape.
With respect to the non-presentation of the subject firearm, such is not fatal to the prosecution
of an illegal possession case as long as the existence thereof can be established by
testimony. In this case, Ochinang testif ied that he saw Taan in possession of a .38 caliber
revolver which the latter used to shoot Ladaga. Signif icantly, this was corroborated by the
testimony of Dr. Rebugio, who conducted the post-mortem examination on Ladaga. He
reported that Ladaga sustained a gunshot wound the entry of which is a hole 1.3 cm. in
diameter located in the mid-posterior aspect of the hard palate while the exit thereof is
another hole 1.3 cm. in diameter in the upper third of the occipital area.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659,
prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. Considering the
qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of the use of an
unlicensed firearm, which was proven through Ochinangs testimony and the Certif ication that
Taan is not a licensed holder of a firearm, the proper imposable penalty would have been
death. However, in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty, the penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua
TREACHERY (PAR 16)
RIVERA v PEOPLE
FACTS: Ruben Rodil testif ied that he used to work as a taxi driver. He stopped driving in April
1998 after a would-be rapist threatened his life. He was even given a citation as a Bayaning
Pilipino by the television network ABS-CBN for saving the would-be victim. His wife eked out
a living as a manicurist. They and their three children resided in Barangay San Isidro
Labrador II, Dasmarias, Cavite, near the house of Esmeraldo Rivera and his brothers Ismael
and Edgardo.
At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food. Edgardo mocked him for
being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and hurled
invectives at Edgardo. A heated exchange of words ensued.
At about 7:30 p.m. the next day, a Sunday, Ruben went to the store to buy food and to look for
his wife. His three-year-old daughter was with him. Momentarily, Esmeraldo and his two
brothers, Ismael and Edgardo, emerged from their house and ganged up on Ruben.
Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows and he fell to the ground. In that helpless
position, Edgardo hit Ruben three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo
and Ismael continued mauling Ruben. People who saw the incident shouted: Awatin sila!
Awatin sila! Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up. Ismael threw a stone at him, hitting
him at the back. When policemen on board a mobile car arrived, Esmeraldo, Ismael and
Edgardo fled to their house.
Ruben was brought to the hospital. His attending physician, Dr.
Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., signed a medical certif icate in which he
declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds on the parietal area,
cerebral concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper
buttocks, multiple abrasions on the left shoulder and hematoma periorbital left. The doctor
declared that the lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight and superficial and would
heal from one to seven days. The doctor prescribed medicine for Rubens back pain, which
he had to take for one month.
The trial court rendered judgment finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
frustrated murder.
CA held the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder.
ISSUE: WON there's treachery.
HELD: YES
We reject 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 three-year-old daughter, impervious 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 three 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.

*Conspiracy, present.
In the case at bar, petitioners, who acted in concert, commenced the felony of murder by
mauling the victim and hitting him three times with a hollow block; they narrowly missed hitting
the middle portion of his head. If Edgardo had done so, Ruben would surely have died.
TREACHERY (PAR 16)
P vs TUBONGBANUA
FACTS: Accused was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn SuaKho since 1998. The
latter worked as the managing partner of the Lawyers Advocate Circle, a law firm operated as
a sole proprietorship, and located at 2302 Atlanta Center, 31 Anapolis St., Greenhills, San
Juan, M.M. Accused was initially paid P6,000.00 a month as wages, aside from boarding,
food, overtime and extra pay, which he received when he did extra driving and other work for
Atty. SuaKhos family.
On February 12, 2001, at around 6:00 oclock in the evening, the accused drove Atty. Sua
Kho to her condominium unit at 1702 Platinum 2000, Anapolis St., Greenhills, San Jun M.M.
After handing his employers bag to Marissa Hiso, the housemaid, accused proceeded to the
kitchen where he drank a glass of water. Also in the condominium unit were Atty. Sua-Khos
three year old daughter Issa and her nanny, Nelie Maglasang. After talking and playing with
her daughter for a few minutes, Atty. Sua- Kho emerged from the bedroom to talk with the
accused. Shortly thereafter, Marrisa heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused
stabbing her with their kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting Kuya Bert!, but
the latter continued to stab Atty. Sua-Kho. Meanwhile, Nelie also heard her employers
screams, and locked herself with Issa in the masters bathroom. When she peeped-out from
her hiding place, she saw Marissa, whom she signaled to go downstairs for help.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 163, rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, accused, Elberto Tubongbanua y Pahilanga, is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the severe penalty of death by lethal injection with all
the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs.
Court of Appeals affirmed with modif ications the decision of the trial court. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, in that, the accused-appellant, having
been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, is hereby sentenced to Death. He is
ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the following..
It also noted that treachery did not attend the commission of the crime as there were no
particulars as to how the killing began or executed.

ISSUE: WON there's treachery.

HELD: NO.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance
of treachery was not present. Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the
execution of a
crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to

be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of

execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from
defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no
opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and
manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.
Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as
conclusively as the killing itself. In the instant case, there is no proof on how the attack was
commenced. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in
which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the
death of the victim began and developed, it can in no way be
established from mere suppositions that the killing was perpetrated by treachery. We find
however that evident premeditation and taking advantage
of superior strength attended the killing.
*Justifying Circumstances; Self-Defense, absent.
Appellants version of the stabbing incident does not inspire belief. His testimony that it was
Atty. Sua-Kho who attacked him is uncorroborated and improbable. Appellants alleged use of
reasonable means to repel the aggression is also untenable considering the nature and
number of wounds inflicted on the victim which demonstrate a determined effort to kill the
victim and not just defend oneself. We note that the victim suffered 18 stab wounds which
were all directed to her chest, heart and lungs. She also had incised wounds which were
inflicted while she was parrying the blows coming from the appellant. In fact, appellant
testif ied that Atty. Sua-Kho was running away from him but he still pursued her and inflicted
the fatal wounds:
* Flight is an indication of guilt
*Evident Premeditation,present.
Prosecution witnesses Marian Aquino and Atty. Joel Baguio testif ied as to appellants state of
mind and predisposition to avenge the alleged maltreatment by the victim. Both witnesses
testif ied on appellants ill-plans against his employer the day prior to the crime. Absent
evidence showing any reason or motive for the witnesses to falsely testify against the
appellant, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and their testimonies
should be accorded full faith and credit. Thus, the lower courts correctly concluded that
evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
* Abuse of Superior Strength, present.
In People v. Espina, 326 SCRA 753 (2000), we have ruled that an attack by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of
abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself.
CRUELTY (PAR 17)
LICAYO vs PEOPLE
FACTS: On 16 February 1992, victim Rufino Guay (Rufino), along with his friends, Jeffrey
and a certain Joel Dumangeng (Joel) attended a wedding at Mabbalat, Kiangan, Ifugao.
Petitioner, together with his friends, Paul and Oliver, were also present at the same wedding.
After the wedding reception, Rufino, Jeffrey and Joel went to Natamas Store at the Kiangan
Public Market and ordered two bottles of gin. While the three were drinking gin at the said
store, petitioner, Paul and Oliver arrived and likewise ordered bottles of gin. Later, petitioner,
Paul and Oliver left the store. Subsequently, Rufino, Jeffrey and Joel likewise adjourned their
drinking session and left the store.

Rufino, Jeffrey and Joel dropped by at Famorcas Store. Petitioner and his brother, Aron, as
well as Paul and Oliver, were also present therein. While Jeffrey was talking to the stores
owner, Larry Famorca (Larry), a brawl suddenly occurred between Rufino and Aron. As a
consequence thereof, Rufino fell to the ground. Aron thereafter placed himself on top of
Rufino and punched the latter several times. Jeffrey approached the two and tried to pacify
them. Paul entered the scene and punched Jeffrey on the head. Thereupon, a scuffle
followed.
Officers Danglay, Buyayo and Baguilat were on their way home from the Kiangan Police
Station when they heard some individuals calling for police assistance regarding the
commotion. The three officers rushed to the scene. Upon arriving thereat, they saw petitioner
holding a six-inch double-bladed knife and walking towards Rufino and Aron who were then
wrestling with each other. Officer Buyayo, then wearing only civilian clothes and unarmed,
approached petitioner and held the latters back collar to prevent him from joining the fray.
Petitioner turned around, faced Officer Buyayo, and tried to stab the latter but he missed.
Officer Buyayo retreated. The officers introduced themselves to petitioner as policemen and
pleaded with him to put down the knife. Petitioner ignored the officers pleas.13
Afterwards, petitioner approached Rufino, who was then wrestling with Paul, and stabbed Rufino in
different parts of the body.14 Officer Baguilat fired a warning shot while Officer Danglay immediately
pounced on petitioner and disarmed the latter.15 Petitioner was brought to the Kiangan Police Station
while Rufino was taken to a nearby hospital where he later died due to stab wounds.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated 20 February 2003, finding petitioner guilty of
homicide in Criminal Case No. 819. It acquitted Aron and Paul because the prosecution failed
to prove the existence of conspiracy. It did not rule on the liability of Oliver because he was
not arraigned in the said case.
Appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modif ications the RTC decision.
petitioner alleges that Rufino started the scuffle by punching Aron on the left cheek; that by
such act, Rufino had given him sufficient provocation; and that it was the pitiful sight of Aron
lying on the ground and being beaten by Rufino and Jeffrey which caused him to stab Rufino.
ISSUE: (Sufficient provocation)
HELD: YES.

The records do not sufficiently establish who between Rufino and Aron started the brawl
which resulted in the stabbing of Rufino by petitioner. What is evident is that Rufino and Aron
suddenly and unexpectedly grappled during the incident.
The fight between Rufino Guay and Aron Licyayo was so sudden.
Granting arguendo that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, it is obvious
that immediately he became the underdog, literally even. He was easily overpowered by the
bigger and sober Aron Licyayo, who unfortunately, does not know how to count. With this
development, the situation changed. The aggressor became the attacked and the attacked,
the aggressor.
But even from the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense witnesses, the former
(prosecution) prevailed in convincing this Court that unlawful aggression was not started by
any of the protagonists but that a sudden fight was started by Rufino Guay and accused Aron
Licyayo. This is verif iable from the testimony of the fourth prosecution witness, Jeffrey
Malingan.
Since it was not convincingly shown that the alleged provocation originated from Rufino, the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation should not be appreciated in favor of

petitioner. We have held that where there is no evidence as to how the quarrel arose, the
accused is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.39
*Intoxication, absent
In the case at bar, there is no plausible evidence showing that the quantity of liquor taken by
petitioner was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties. On the contrary, the fact that
petitioner could recall the details that transpired during and after his drinking session with
friends is the best proof that he knew what he was doing during the incident. His vivid
narration that he had a confrontation with Rufino, Jeffrey and Joel during the drinking session;
that Daniel approached and told him that Aron was being mauled; that he immediately went to
the scene and saw Aron being beaten by Rufino and Jeffrey; that he pushed Jeffrey away
from Aron; that he was allegedly beaten by the companions of Jeffrey; and that he fought
back but was allegedly overpowered --- all point to the conclusion that petitioner had complete
control of his mind during the incident

CRUELTY (PAR 17)

P vs FONCARDAS
FACTS: At around 12:00 midnight of May 14, 1997, after having a drinking spree at Romeo's
Videoke located at Trading Boulevard, Duetes, Quijada, Dequia, Marco Mariaca (Mariaca)
and appellant (the group) walked some 50 meters to the corner of Trading Boulevard, fronting
Rizal Extension, where it stayed for five minutes. Realizing that it had run out of cigarettes,
the group proceeded to Carol's Store,4 but returned to the corner of Trading Boulevard,
fronting Rizal Extension, to sit, smoke and while the time away.
Soon after, the victim who had just purchased a bottle of Coke from Carol's Store, repaired to
the corner of Trading Boulevard, fronting Rizal Extension where he bought balut from a
vendor. About 5 meters away from the group, the victim ate balut and drank the coke. Quijada
then approached the victim, and the two started talking while Duetes, Dequia, Mariaca, and
appellant just watched and smoked.
Minutes later, Duetes approached the victim and Quijada and sat down behind the two. Not long after,
Quijada was heard shouting something in the Visayan dialect, allegedly angered by the victim's not
acceding to his demands for money.
Without any warning, Duetes pulled the victim from behind, causing the latter to fall down on his back.
Appellant and Dequia rushed to join their companions Duetes and Quijada. Apparently, the victim was
able to rise. Appellant, Quijada, Duetes and Dequia, however, pummeled him with their fists while
Mariaca looked on in shock and disbelief. The mauling of the victim continued even as Quijada left the
scene momentarily. When Quijada returned bearing a piece of wood about two and half feet long,
appellant and Duetes who were standing behind the victim, held the latter, rendering him helpless, as
Quijada struck the victim's nape with the piece of wood. The victim fell down after being struck.
Duetes then told Mariaca, who was merely looking at his companions, to run. Mariaca did as he was
told and immediately ran away from the scene.
Seeing that a person was struck by a piece of wood, garbage collectors Quirino Cabag (Cabag), Ronil
Viilano, Roman Tajo, and the driver of the garbage truck, who were 50 meters away, shouted at the
assailants and approached them. Quijada thereupon told his companions to move away from the victim,
who was already sprawled helplessly on the ground. Quijada continued to strike at the victim's head,
however. When the garbage collectors were about 7 meters away, appellant, Duetes and Dequia
scampered away even as Quijada continued to assault the victim with the piece of wood. Before the
garbage collectors could apprehend him, however, Quijada speedily left the scene of the crime.

From the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Davao City finding appellant
Reyman Foncardas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
ISSUE:
HELD:
*Intoxication, absent.
Neither could appellant's alleged intoxication be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. To
be mitigating, it is necessary that appellant present proof of having taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect of
obfuscating reason. At the same time, he must prove that he is not a habitual drinker and that
he did not take the alcoholic drink purposely to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.39In
the absence then of clear and positive proof as to appellant's state of intoxication, this Court
cannot consider appellant's drinking beer as a mitigating circumstance.
*Treachery, present.
As for treachery in the killing, the trial court correctly appreciated its presence. The essence of
treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected
manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.32 From Mariaca's and Cabag's testimony that appellant and Duetes held the victim
while Quijada struck the nape of the victim, the victim was rendered defenseless. There can
be no mistaking then that the manner by which the victim was restrained and assaulted was
deliberately and consciously adopted by his assailants to ensure his demise.
*Evident premeditation, absent.
The attendance of evident premeditation in the commission of the crime, though alleged in the
information, is not supported by evidence, as there is no showing as to when appellant and
his co-accused determined to kill the victim.
CRUELTY (PAR 17)
P vs AMADORE
FACTS:
Private complainant Maria Fe Oquindo testif ied that on 21 March 1991 she awoke to see
accused-appellant, her stepfather, standing in front of her with only his brief on. He told her to
remove her panty but she refused. Scolding her for her disobedience, accused-appellant got
a pillow and placed it over her face. He laid on top of her, removed her panty, inserted his
penis into her vagina, and then moved himself up and down.She felt severe pain. The incident
happened in their house at 004-A Calabasa Street, Tambakan, Pulanglupa, Las Pias, Metro
Manila.
On 22 March 1991, also in the same place, accused-appellant fondled the young girls
breast and kissed her many times against her will. He did not persist and he threatened her
not to tell on him.
On 01 March 1993, while Maria Fe was playing inside the house, accused-appellant
called her and ordered her to lie down. Afraid, she obeyed. Accused-appellant then removed
her panty, laid on top of her, and succeeded in taking her. She was threatened not to mention
the incident to anyone or, if she did, he would kill her mother. At the time, only the victim and
accused-appellant were in the house.

On 11 January 1996, Maria Fe, along with her mother, sister and stepfather, was in
Batangas for a vacation. While she was playing with her cousins, she was told by accusedappellant to get back inside the house. She refused. Accused-appellant twisted her arms and
pulled her in. He told her to lie down. She tried to fight back but accused-appellant pushed her
down, removed her panty and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After a while,
she felt a sticky substance coming from accused-appellant. When told to wash, she saw white
sticky substance coming out of her.
On the mid-afternoon of 26 February 1996, back from vacation, Maria Fe was subjected
to a like ordeal.She was in their house playing when accused-appellant asked for a
massage. The witness obliged. While giving the massage, he suddenly embraced her and
made her lie on the floor. He went on top of, and consummated his evil design on, her.
On 14 March 1996, Maria Fe was at her aunts place located just behind their own house
when she was again called by accused-appellant ostensibly to take a bath. He ordered her to
remove her panty. When she refused, accused-appellant berated her. He twisted her arms
and made her lie down. He removed her panty, laid on top of her and again satisfied his lust.
On 27 June 1996, about two oclock in the afternoon, while Maria Fe was playing just
outside their house, accused-appellant instructed her to bring him a glass of water. Just as
she was about to hand the glass of water, accused-appellant pulled her down. She tried to
push him away but, as usual, her resistance proved futile.After the sexual congress,[9] she
fled out of the house. She was still fixing her panty when one Nora Caales saw her. Caales
asked what had happened. She pretended to have just urinated. Suspicious, Caales informed
Mely Anda, Maria Fes aunt, of the incident. When confronted, Maria Fe confessed all that had
happened to her in the hands of her stepfather.
Maria Fe testif ied that she was even much younger when she was first abused by
accused-appellant. She kept things to herself because she was afraid that her mother, Julieta
Amadore, would feel more for accused-appellant than she would for her. True to her fears,
when she finally revealed the incident to her mother, she was told - Siguro, kagustuhan mo
ito. With the help of a neighbor, she finally filed a complaint against her stepfather.
RTC ruled that : the judgment is rendered finding the accused Rodrigo Amadore y Obina
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the following cases and sentenced
accordingly.

ISSUE:
HELD:
*The relationship between accused-appellant and his victim and the latters minority are
qualifying circumstances that must be correctly alleged and proved in order to warrant the
imposition of the death penalty. Apparently, the victim is not the stepdaughter of accusedappellant as has been so stated in the informations but is the daughter of his common-law
spouse by the latters marital relation with another. A stepdaughter is a daughter of ones legal
spouse by a previous marriage. Except for the information in one of the criminal cases, the
minority of the victim has, too, not been alleged. The Court has successively ruled that the
circumstances under the provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659,[23] the
attendance of any of which mandates the penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying
circumstances and the absence of the proper averment thereof in the complaint negates the
imposition of that extreme penalty.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

CRUELTY (PAR 17)
P vs LUCAS
FACTS: Sometime in September 1985, thirteen-year old Mauricia, then working as a
housemaid, was fetched by her father from her place of work at 1171 Batanes Street,
Sampaloc, Manila. Mauricia asked appellant where they were going, but the latter simply did
not answer. Father and daughter boarded a jeepney and alighted in a dark place which
Mauricia found unfamiliar. Mauricia was then brought to a dark room where her father tied
both her hands and feet to a bed, undressed her, lighted a cigarette and burnt her face with it,
kissed her, fondled her private parts, and finally, pointing a knife approximately eight (8)
inches long at her neck, consummated the sexual act. All throughout the forced sexual
intercourse, appellant was laughing. He then threatened to kill Mauricia if she revealed the
incident to anyone. Despite such warning, Mauricia told her paternal grandfather about her
terrible experience. Her grandfather, angered, confronted the appellant, but the latter only
threatened to harm the old man. About six months after the alleged rape took place, Mauricia
decided to report the incident to the police.
Trial ensued, whereupon the lower court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of the
crime charged with the aggravating circumstances of relationship and cruelty.
ISSUE: WON there's cruelty.
HELD: YES.
After a careful review of the record, this Court affirms the judgment of the trial court finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, aggravated by the
circumstances of relationship and cruelty (ensanamiento).
Likewise, cruelty attended the commission of the crime. There is cruelty when the offender
enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the offense [People v. Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27241,
February 28, 1981, 103 SCRA 207; People v. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423 (1926)]. Cruelty is present
in this case where appellant tied the victim to a bed, burnt her face with a lighted cigarette
while raping her and laughed as he did all these.
*Relationship, appreciated.
The alternative circumstance of relationship is taken into consideration when, as in this case, the victim
is the descendant of the offender [Art. 15, Revised Penal Code]. In crimes against chastity, relationship
is aggravating. The gravity of a crime attended by abuse of relationship was emphasized in the case
of People v. Porras [58 Phil. 578, 579 (1933)], which likewise involved the rape of a daughter by the
father, wherein it was held that: "[t]he crime in this case was so monstrous that no punishment which is
in the power of this or any other human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of
the offense." In this case We find that, indeed, appellant abused the filial trust reposed in him by his
daughter in order to carry out the crime to his every advantage. He personally fetched the victim, his
daughter, at her place of work, took her to the scene of the crime, and forced himself sexually.
IGNOMINY (PAR 21)
P vs FERNANDEZ

FACTS:
Teofilo Malong employed Rebecca Soriano as a househelper since September 1981.
Residing in Teofilo's house were his wife and daughters Amelita and Ma. Theresa. Rebecca
Soriano testif ied that on 13 January 1982 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, and after she
had just finished taking a bath and still naked, the two (2) accused, both in short pants,
surreptitiously entered the bathroom. To prevent her from making an outcry, a piece of cloth
was tightly tied around her neck, after which she was forcibly laid down. Conrado held her
hands behind her while Fernandez sexually abused her. She declared that, immediately after
Fernandez had raped her, Conrado in turn went on top of her and likewise succeeded in
having sexual congress with her against her will. She added that, thereafter, Fernandez got a
handful of mud near the bathroom and placed it on her vagina. Thereupon, she ran to the
upper floor of the house to report the tragic incident to Amelita Malong.
RTC ruled: WHEREFORE, the Court finds each of the accused MELQUIADES
FERNANDEZ, alias "Moding" and FEDERICO CONRADO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two crimes of rape, aggravated by cruelty or ignominy, and, pursuant to law, hereby
sentences each of them to suffer two (2) penalties of death, to indemnify the aggrieved party,
Rebecca M. Soriano, in the amount of P12,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. 10
ISSUE: WON there's ignominy.
HELD: YES.
The trial court is correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of ignominy because of
the greater perversity displayed by the offenders. The testimony of the examining physician
that he did not find mud on the victim's private organ, does not necessarily belie the latter's
asseveration that the accused "plastered" (in the words of the lower court) mud on her private
part. It is worthwhile mentioning that the victim was examined and treated by Dr. Claudio at
3:55 p.m. or about almost two (2) hours after the rape was committed.
Given this circumstance, the absence of mud in the victim's private part when she was
examined by the physician, may be attributed to the possibility that the mud washed or fell off
even before the victim left the house for her physical examination. Moreover, Rebecca's
testimony was corroborated by that of Amelita Malong who swore that she saw mud smeared
on Rebecca's private part when she (Amelita) saw Rebecca right after the incident. It is also
difficult to conceive why the offended party, young as she was, and with a chaste reputation,
would go to the extent of fabricating this portion of her testimony notwithstanding the
consequent humiliation on her person and disgrace on her womanhood. We cannot but agree
with the trial court's finding that the offense was aggravated by ignominy. We are of the
opinion, however that the word "cruelty" used in the dispositive portion of the judgment, to
describe an alternative aggravating circumstance, is unnecessary.
The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped, is
adequately and properly described as "ignominy" rather than "cruelty or ignominy."