FORTUNA VS PEOPLE The supreme court, however, was convinced that the trial

court and the appellate court did not erred in holding the accused
FACTS: Diosdada and her brother Mario Montecillo was waiting for a ride
home when suddenly a mobile patrol stopped in front of them. The
policeman seated in the front right seated alighted and without a word
frisked Mario. He took Marios belt and pointed to the supposed blunt
object and uttered evidence. He then mentioned to Mario to board
the car. Mario being terrified obeyed and seated himself at the back
with another policeman. Diosdada instinctively followed suit and sat
beside Mario.
appellant Fortuna guilty for conspiring with the other policemen.
As a police officer, it is his primary duty to avert by all means
the commission of an offense. As such, he should not have kept his
silence but, instead, should have protected the Montecillos from his
mulcting colleagues. This accused-appellant failed to do. His silence
then could only be viewed as a form of moral support which he
zealously lent to his co-conspirators.

The driver asked Mario why he was carrying a deadly
weapon. Mario answered that its for self-defense. They frightened
Mario that for carrying a deadly weapon he will be brought to Bicutan
police station where he would be interrogated by the police, mauled
by prisoners and heckled by the press. The policeman told the
Montecillos that the bailband for carrying a deadly weapon would be
Php 12,000.00. At this point the driver asked them how much money
they had.
Diosdada was then made to alight the car. The driver
followed her and forced her to take out her wallet. He counted her
money which amounts to Php 5,000.00. He took the Php 1,500 and
instructed Diosdada to tell his companions that she only had Php
3,500.00.
Once in the car the policeman directed her to put her money
in the console box. The car then proceed to Harrison Plaza and
unload Diosdada and her brother Mario.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance under Article
14 paragraph 1 or the abuse of public position should be
appreciated in the case at bar?
HELD: Yes. The mere fact that the three accused were police officers at the
time of the robbery placed them in the position to perpetrate the
offense. If they were not police officers the Montecillos would not
have been terrified on boarding the patrol car and hand them their
money. Precisely on account of their authority that the Montecillos
believed that Mario committed a crime and would be brought to the
police station for investigation unless they gave them money.
Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision with
modifications appreciating the aggravating circumstance on the case
at bar.

The following day Diosdada recounted her harrowing story to

her employer who accompanied her to the office of the then General
Diokno where they lodged their complaint. General Diokno directed
one of his policemen to look for the erring policemen. A line up of
policemen was assembled and Diosdada recognized them.

They were found guilty of having conspired to commit a crime

by the trial court and it was affirmed by the appellate court.

However, Fortuna contends that the trial and appellate court

erred in their decision that he took part in the conspiracy. He argued
that the evidenced presented by the prosecution did not support the
theory of conspiracy against him.
 Sinoc Case hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus
palpable.
This case is about also the kidnapping of certain person (Viacrusis) and his
driver (Guijapon) by the appellant and his companion they take the pajero The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to
and shoot the two person whom one is dead for having a fatal wounds arrest Sinoc and take possession of the "Pajero." His arrest without warrant
while the other escape from his instantaneous death. The arrest then was justified; indeed, it was in the premises the officers' clear duty to
commence on September 21, 1991, at about 7 o'clock, a secret informant apprehend him; their omission to do so would have been inexcusable.
(known as a "civilian asset") named Boyet reported to the Police Station at
Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen ("carnapped") "Pajero" was
parked behind the apartment of a certain Paulino Overa at the Bliss
Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructions of the Station
Commander, a police team 8 went to the place. They saw the "Pajero" and,
their initial inquiries having yielded the information that the man who had
brought it there would return that morning, posted themselves in such a
manner as to keep it in view. Some three hours later, at about 10:30
o'clock, they saw a man approach the "Pajero" who, on seeing them, tried
to run away. They stopped him. They found out that the man, identified as
Danilo Sinoc, of Surigao del Norte and arrest him.

ISSUE: Is the arrest valid?

There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an
offense had just been committed: i.e., that some twelve hours earlier, a
"Pajero" belonging to a private company had been stolen ("carnapped") and
its driver and passenger shot, the former having died and the latter being on
the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an informer ("asset") had
reported that the stolen "Pajero" was at the Bliss Housing Project at
Moncayo. It was precisely to recover the "Pajero" that a team composed of
SPO1 Michael Aringo and "joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Monkayo
Police Stn led by Insptr Eden T. Ugale," went to that place and, on taking
custody of the "Pajero," forthwith dispatched a radio message to "Higher
Headquarters" advising of that fact.

There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions
reached the place where the "Pajero" was parked, they were told by Paulino
Overa, owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the
man who had brought the "Pajero" would be back by 12:00 noon; that the
person thus described did in fact show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was
immediately identified by Overa as "the one who rode on that car 'pajero;'" 17
just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted him, Sinoc PEOPLE VS. DELA CERNA
had the key to the stolen "Pajero" and was in the act of moving toward it 21 SCRA 569 (1967)
admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum
together with another suspect, "Ram"). Sinoc's link to the stolen vehicle (and
Nature: An appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato finding the accused guilty for double murder.
FACTS: Early in the morning of February 3, 1958, Rafael Cabizares,
accompanied by his wife, Hospicia, his brothers Margarito and
Romualdo, and his sons Gumercindo, Marcelo, Casiano, Juan and
Lamberto, left Barrio Cebuano headed for the poblacion of Tupi,
Cotabato, bringing five sacks of corn loaded on a bull cart to be
milled in Tupi, Juan, Marcelo and Lamberto, who were all minors,
were then going to school. Upon approaching a hilly part, they had to
stop since the carabao could not pull the bull cart uphill. Rafael then
requested his two brothers and his son Gumercindo to accompany
him up the hill and carry on their backs the sacks of corn. With Rafael
leading, the four proceeded uphill.
As the four approached Sulpicio de la Cerna's house oiltop of
the hill and were about to put down the sacks of corn, appellant
Sulpicio, who was in the house, fired at and hit Rafael, who fell down.
Sulpicio then ordered his companions to burn his house so that they
would have an excuse. Meanwhile, Casiano, Gumercindo, Marcelo
and Romualdo brought the wounded Rafael Cabizares to the house
of the latter's father, Demetrio, 100 meters away. FelisaBastismo,
Rafael's mother, Ursula Cabizares and SegundinoCabizares were
there at the time.
After the group reached the house, Rafael's wounds were
washed with hot water and then he was brought inside the third room
of the house. Subsequently, appellant Sulpicio and the other accused
arrived at the premises, armed with firearms, bolos and canes. They
stoned the house and thrust their bolos thru the bamboo walls and
flooring. Finding that there were women inside the house, the
accused ordered them to get out or else they would be killed also. As
FelisaBastismo and Ursula Cabizares alighted from the besieged
house, Marcelo Cabizares followed them, and although held by
accused ConradoPardillo and boxed by SerapioMaquiling, he was
able to escape to the nearby forest.
SerapioMaquiling then climbed up the window of the kitchen,
and with the carbine which he got from appellant Sulpicio de la
Cerna, shot at Rafael Cabizares who was sitting in the third room. At
this moment, CasianoCabizares jumped down from the house thru
the kitchen door and ran away. SerapioMaquiling followed him and
shot the latter at the back, killing him a few meters away from
Demetrio's house. Appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna then got back the
carbine, climbed up the house and fired once more at Rafael, who
was now lying down on the floor, killing him finally. Thereafter, the
cadaver of CasianoCabizares was tied to a bamboo pole, carried by
accused Ramon Alquizar and one Wilfredo Malias (at large) and
placed near the burned house of Sulpicio de la Cerna, as some of the
accused followed while the rest proceeded to Rafael's house.
ISSUE: Whether the five appellants are all guilty as principals?
Held: The five appellants guilty as co-principals in the murder of
Rafael Cabizares.
The positive identification of the several prosecution
witnesses must prevail over the alibis proffered by these appellants.
Their presence and active participation in the meeting in Abapo's
house make them actual conspirators in the killing of Rafael. They
were also present and zealously participating in the execution of their
criminal design, giving a carbine magazine and instructionns to
appellant Rotor, threatening Rafael and giving encouragement to
Sulpicio to shoot at the latter. They were among those who laid siege
to Demetrio's house and left together with the others after finally
accomplishing their criminal deeds as agreed upon. Appellants
Bautista and Matchoca, are therefore also liable as co-principals in
Rafael's murder. Regarding motive, it was proved that both were
among those involved in the land conflict with Rafael Cabizares and
were among the respondents in the case before the Agrarian Court
The aggravating circumstance of treachery, applicable
against appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna only, is offset by his voluntary
surrender after the incident. This mitigating circumstance however
cannot benefit the remaining appellant who did not voluntary
surrender. For all the appellants, therefore, the penalty for Rafael
Cabizares' murder must be imposed in the medium period. For the
killing of CasianoCabizares appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna must be
acquitted.
Issues:
1. WoN appellants version can be accepted
NO
The autopsy reports contradict Sulpicio's claim that he shot the
decedents frontally while he was up in his house. The deceased each
sustained a gunshot wound directly at the back.
 Casiano's wound of entry is lower than the wound of exit, showing
that the bullet flight path was upwards, not downwards. A gun fired
from the elevated flooring of a house like Sulpicio's, and aimed
downwards, could not have caused such wounds.
Rafael's cadaver also bore a stab wound on the left side.
Bloodstains were found inside Demetrio Cabizares house and also
on the ground at the spot where Casiano fell when shot by Serapio.
An empty carbine shell was found in the kitchen.
Sulpicio has more reason to resent and kill Rafael since they were
defeated in the ejectment suit.
The Court also found that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses credible.
2. WoN there was treachery
YES
First shot (No): Appellant Sulpicio contends that his first shot was not
attended with treachery since there is evidence that Rafael was
warned by his son Gumercindo just before he was hit in the lower
abdomen.
Second shot (Yes): The second shot was definitely treacherously
fired since Rafael was then in the third room of Demetrio's house,
wounded and defenseless. The treachery here has to be
independently considered due to the sufficient lapse of time from the
first shot, in which events intervened.
Third shot (Yes): The third shot, also fired by Sulpicio, was
treacherously done. Rafael was then flat on the floor and although
still alive, was completely defenseless, having been shot twice
already. Dr. Garcias testimony also attested to that.
Cana retracted his testimony one year and ten months after he
testified for the prosecution. However, the Court ruled that the second
testimony was not credible given that Cana was evasive and most of
his answers were, I dont know or I dont remember.
Cana was also constrained to testify falsely because he was bribed
by Rafaels widow, Hospicia.
4. WoN appellant Sulpicio can be held liable for the killing of Casiano
Cabizares
NO
The conspiracy was to kill Rafael and no one else. Nothing was said
or agreed upon about the members of Rafaels family. Appellants left
the two women unhurt and did no harm to Rafaels remaining
companions in the house.
Rule: co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the
conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-
conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence
of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable.
5. WoN Sulpicio can be considered a principal by indispensable
cooperation or an accomplice
NO
There is no evidence that Sulpicio was aware that Serapio would use
the rifle to kill Casiano. He should be acquitted for the killing of
Casiano.

3. WoN there was evident premeditation

YES
The previous plan to kill Rafael Cabizares was testified to by witness
Maximo Caa who was present in the meeting in the house of Andres
Abapo. He recognized appellants Sulpicio de la Cerna, Antonio
Bautista, Severino Matchoca and Serapio Maquiling.
Bautista told the group that the purpose of the meeting was to plan
the killing of Rafael Cabizares. Then he and Serapio Maquiling
signified their willingness to execute it. Appellant Sulpicio also offered
to do it provided his family would be taken care of. Bautista and
Maquiling replied that they would take care of Sulpicio's family. Caa
testified further that none of those attending voiced out any objection
but all agreed to the plan.