People vs cayago

427 SCRA 528 Criminal Law Aggravating Circumstance Recidivism Aggravating Circumstance/s
must be alleged in the Information
One drizzly night, Rosemarie Tallada was seen standing near a bridge waiting for someone. Later
Dacillo, called her to his house. Then the people in the adjacent house felt a struggle ensuing in Dacillos
house. The next day, Dacillos actuations were found to be suspicious as he was carrying ready mixed
cements in his house. This puzzled the neighbors who eventually called the police. Later, they discovered
the tomb of the decomposing body of Tallada. The accused was found to be a recidivist during trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not recidivism is to be appreciated.
HELD: No. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information. Although
evidence may show that indeed the accused has previous convictions this does not sufficiently prove or
make the aggravating circumstance be appreciated. It must be alleged in the information pursuant to the
rules of court on criminal procedure.

G.R. No. 149368. April 14, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO DACILLO AND JOSELITO PACOT y
IBARRA
Criminal Case Digest
Digested Cases
Criminal Law

Facts:
Jovelyn Dagmil saw the victim, Rosemarie B. Tallada, enter the house of the accused
Francisco Dacillo, where she was last seen alive. Moments later Jovelyn and several
others heard a struggle that took place in the house but failed to report the same
immediately to the police. Five days later the foul odor of the victims rotting body
was emitted from the house of the accused to which they decided to call the police.
Upon closer investigation, they found the body of the victim encased in a cement
tomb in the home of the accused who was only arrested a year after the discovery of
the body. He was found guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced to death due to
the aggravating circumstance of recidivism for a previous conviction for the death of
his former live-in partner. Joselito Pacot, who he claimed killed the victim, was
acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to identify him with certainty.

Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should have been appreciated by
the court against the accused

Ruling:
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to
allege it in the information and to attach certified true copies of the sentences
previously meted out to the accused. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was
not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant.
Hence the imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Ingal vs. People

Facts:

Prevalence of taking advantage of their superior strength with deliberate, unlawful, intent
to kill and use of personal violence upon the victim Rolando Domingo, accused Jose Ingal
conspired together with Ricardo Lidot in consummating the crime. The two stabbed the former
on different parts of his body, inflicting upon him mortal stab wound which became the
immediate cause of his death. The testimonies of the witnesses present during the incident
incriminated the petitioner. They contended that the accused approached violently the victim
Domingo while eating, and repeatedly stabbed the latter. However, the accused argued that he
was in the place of work when the crime happened.

The trial court convicted Ingal of murder and the CA rendered a decision affirming in toto
the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

WON Ingal is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

Ruling:

According to the court, conspiracy cannot be considered an element of the crime of

murder or homicide. Conspiracy is only important in determining the liability of the perpetrator,
thus, if the prosecution fails to prove such, only those proven liable can be held guilty for the
crime charged. In this case, prosecution failed to prove conspiracy; however, the former has
proven that the petitioner was the one who consumed the crime, and since conspiracy is
absent, the petitioner alone will be held liable for the death of the victim.

Consequently, it was proven that there was a deliberate intent to kill because first, the
petitioner used treachery in the commission of the crime making the victim unable to defend
himself; and second, the weapon use is a tres cantos.

The court affirmed with modification the CA decision. WHEREFORE, the petitioner is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua xxx.
People vs almedilla

409 SCRA 428 Criminal Law Aggravating Circumstance Treachery Hitting Behind the Back
Killing After an Altercation
On July 3, 1997, Ruel Barela, a manager at a construction company confronted Willie Almedilla while the
latter was eating. Barela castigated Almedilla for leaving the gate open. They exchanged some word.
According to witness accounts, about one minuteafter the argument and while Barela was already
walking away from Almedilla with his back turned, Almedilla fired a shot upon Barelas back. Barela
eventually died.
The trial court convicted Almedilla of murder as it appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
On appeal, Almedilla contested the propriety of the crime for which he was convicted. He invoked the
ruling in People vs Academia, Jr. (307 SCRA 229) where it was ruled that:
treachery may not be appreciated where an altercation preceded the shooting, and the time between
the altercation and shooting was not significant as to create a break in the series of events.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing to murder?
HELD: Yes. The one minute that lapsed from the time of the argument until the act of shooting by
Almedilla is already sufficient for him to formulate the intent to kill Barela. In fact, he made sure that
Barelas back was turned away from him before he shot him thereby ensuring that Barela had no means
to defend himself. In other words, the shooting did not immediately follow the altercation. There was still a
sufficient break in the series of events. Therefore, treachery was properly appreciated against Almedilla.

You are here: Home 2013 August Case Digest: RICARDO BACABAC v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES 532 SCRA 557 (2007)

CASE DIGEST: RICARDO BACABAC

V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
532 SCRA 557 (2007)
Published by arce on August 13, 2013 | Leave a response

RICARDO BACABAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 532 SCRA

557 (2007)

Bacabacs failure to assist the victims after the shooting reinforces this Courts
appreciation of community of design between him and his co-accused to harm
the victims. Following a heated argument in a dance hall which resulted in a
brawl, Jose Talanquines, Jr. (Jose), and Edzel Talanquines (Edzel), herein
referred to as Talanquines brothers, proceeded to confront their enemies
7alleged that even if he was convicted of Murder, in gratis argumenti, the
correctness of the pronouncement of guilt should have been attended by the
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, in the
same manner as the other accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is conspiracy among Jonathan Bacabac, Pat. Ricardo

Bacabac, and Jesus Delfin in the murder of the victims.

HELD:

Bacabacs failure to assist the victims after the shooting reinforces this Courts
appreciation of community of design between him and his co-accused to harm
the victims. What is decisive in treachery is that the attack was executed in
such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. In the case
at bar, 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.
Conspiracy presupposes the existence of evident premeditation does not
necessarily imply that the converse that evident premeditation presupposes
the existence of a conspiracy is 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.