Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Garcia vs CA and People Aurea Monteverde vs People

Facts: Facts
 Charged with estafa through falsification of commercial document
 Accused were Fidelino Garcia, Leopoldo Garcia, and Wilfredo Garcia  Monteverde is a Brgy Chairman. In connection with that, she received 44,
 All were charged with murder 800 Php from PAGCOR. The amount was spent for lighting, cleanliness,
 Witnesses were police officers – Francisco Rollera, Pobeda, and Roadilla and beautification programs of the barangay. To liquidate, she submitted
 Victim was Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena financial statements with copies of sales invoices/receipts to PAGCOR.
 Rollera testimony: Wilfredo and Leopoldo were ganging on Olgena. According to the Sandiganbayan (SBN), the receipt submitted by
Leopoldo held the victim, Fidelino hit him with an empty bottle, and Monteverde contained 11 items, when the duplicate original, verified
Wilfredo stabbed the victim with a fan knife that got stuck in Olgena’s with the hardware store (Sanford) manager, contained only 3 items.
body. Olgena managed to free himself from Leopoldo, took the knife out Defense witnesses presented a Barangay Tanod who attested to the
of his body and stabbed Fidelino in the stomach. Rollera fired warning installation of lighting in the playgrounds of the barangay, he having
shots. Olgena retreated to a store, Wilfredo in pursuit. Inside the store, helped the accused’s husband in installing the same.
Olgena stabbed Wilfredo twice in the neck and stomach. They called for  Sandiganbayan acquitted her of estafa, there being no evidence that the
police help. funds were misappropriated or converted. Neither was there proof that
 Medico-legal certificate stated that COD was cerebral hemmorhage accused was required to account for the money received. She was,
 RTC convicted them of homicide. Accused Fidelino appealed. however, convicted of falsification, even absent proof that it was
Monteverde who had caused the falsification, relying on the presumption
Issues: that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a person who is found in
 WON there was conspiracy possession of a forged document, and who uses it, is the forger.
 Error in conviction because evidence does not establish culpability as Issues
principal, co-conspirator, or accomplice  WON what was committed was a complex crime.
 WON indictment for falsification can still be made despite exoneration
Holding: from estafa.
 No conspiracy because the information doesn’t satisfy the requirement  WON there is reasonable doubt.
that conspiracy be conveyed in “appropriate language”. Conspiracy must
be alleged, and not merely inferred. There must be a particular statement Held
in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet mentioning a definite act  There is no complex crime. Complex crimes arise when (1) there is a
constituting conspiracy. Indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or
follows the words of the statue creating the offense and reasonable all) be the result of a single act; or (2) one offence is necessary to the
informs the accused of the offense he is charged with; (2) contains a commission of the other(s). The alleged falsification was committed with
sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of conspiracy; (3) the intention to conceal, and not to commit, the alleged
alleges both conspiracy and contemplated crime in the language of the malversation/estafa. The accused should have objected to the charging of
statue defining them. more than one offense in the information. Failure to do so, however,
 Evidence is insufficient to support conviction. Upon cross-examination, it allows the trial court to convict of as many offenses as are charged and
was established that, contrary to the prosecution’s side, Fidelino was still proven.
approaching when Olgena was stabbed and managed to get loose. It was  No proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is proof that two sets of sales
then that Olgena attacked Fidelino. Prosecution’s evidence also doesn’t invoices were used. There are also material discrepancies between the
establish a direct link between Fidelino’s act of hitting Olgena and any supposed duplicate original copy of the sales invoice from Sanford and
injury sustained, much less the cause of death. It is unclear whether the sales invoice presented by the accused: (1) discrepancy in the typeset;
Fidelino even succeeded in hitting Olgena with the bottle. (2) name of the printing press in one and absence in the other; and (3)
BIR permit in one and none in the other. Because of the above  Self-defense is untenable. (1) The Ferrer brothers were not unlawful
differences, prosecution cannot be deemed to have presented an original, aggressors, it having been shown that they were merely standing,
of which the invoice presented by the accused is a falsification. unarmed, in front of the bar when Rujjeric and Ferdinand arrived and the
 Acquitted on reasonable doubt. former began firing his gun; (2) assuming that there was unlawful
aggression, there was no reasonable necessity of means employed to
Rujjeric Palaganas vs People prevent it. There was no actual or imminent danger to petitioner and his
brother when the Ferrer brothers began throwing stones because they
Facts: could have run away or taken cover.
 Victims are brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael Ferrer  The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly
 Accused are Rujjeric and Ferdinand Palaganas and remittingly considered important indicia to disprove a plea of self-
 The Ferrer brothers were having a drinking spree at their house to defense.
celebrate the arrival of their brother Melton. Thereafter, they proceeded  SC modified finding of trial court: one count homicide, one count
to a karaoke bar. Later, three persons – Jaime Palaganas, Ferdinand frustrated homicide, and one count attempted homicide. Gunshot wound
Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista – arrived. The two groups were the only of Michael was not considered frustrated homicide since the treatment
customers. When Jaime Palaganas began to sing, Melton, who also knew duration would only be for six to eight days and was neither fatal nor
the song, sang along. Jaime resented this and went over to their table mortal.
where he struck Servillano with the microphone. Virgilio Bautista had left  Use of unlicensed firearm to commit crimes should be considered as a
the place. Ferdinand went out of the bar. Michael was going to follow special aggravating and not merely generic aggravating circumstance. (PD
him, but was persuaded otherwise by Servillano. Later, Servillano noticed 1866 as amended by RA 8294, which made it a special aggravating instead
that hs wristwatch was missing and went outside the bar to look for it. of merely generic aggravating). RA 8294 is applicable because it took
There they saw Ferdinand pointing them out and telling his companion to effect before the commission of the crimes.
shoot them. Servillano was hit at the left side of the abdomen, Melton at  Voluntary surrender was single mitigating circumstance, but cannot be
the head, and Michael at the shoulder. When Servillano noticed that appreciated because of the special aggravating circumstance.
Melton was no longer moving, he told Michael “Bato, bato.” Michael then  (1) attempted homicide – arresto mayor to prision correccional
pelted Ferdinand and his companion with stones. maximum; (2) frustrated homicide – prision correccional to prision mayor
 Defense contends that Melton provoked them by singing along in a maximum; (3) prision mayor to reclusion temporal maximum
mocking manner. In the fight that ensued, Ferdinand ran to the house of
his brother Rujjeric to seek for help. On the way to the bar, they were People vs Brodet
stoned by the Ferrer brothers. To defend themselves, he shot at the
Ferrer brothers. Facts, Holding
 Melton died, Servillano was shot through the abdomen, urinary bladder,  Accused were Ronald Dulay, Reynald de Guzman, and Robert Brodett
and rectum bullet sacral region and would have died were it not for  Victim was Dr. April Duque
timely medical attention.  Convicted of murder by RTC
 Rujjeric convicted by the trial court of 2 counts frustrated homicide and 1  Pangasinan police were alerted to the presence of a burning corpse on
count homicide, with the use of unlicensed firearm. the spillway of Laoac, Alcala, along the national highway. The corpse was
 Ferdinand acquitted for failure of prosecution to prove conspiracy and later identified as that of Dr. April Duque. A ring and a wristwatch taken
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. from the corpse were identified as belonging to Dr. April Duque by her
mother and clinic assistant.
Issue  Dulay was alleged to be Duque’s new boyfriend, while Brodett was her
 WON the defense of self-defense is tenable live-in-partner of nine years as well as the father of her son Giobert.
 Prosecution relied on the testimony of Duque’s 5-year-old son Giobert
Held who said that his father killed his mother, hitting her head with a hammer
and stabbing her (on the neck). The same was corroborated by medico- convicted of kidnapping with murder, together with Pangilinan,
legal report. Macasaquit, and Cabrera. Macalino and Meneses were acquitted, and
 CA affirmed, found killing qualified by treachery, and a generic Salas died during the pendency of the case. Only del Mundo appealed.
aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the corpse. Abuse of superior
strength absorbed in treachery. Dwelling not appreciated because both Issue
perpetrator and victim lived in the same house. Disrespect on sex not  WON the defense contention of no intention to deprive Miranda of his
considered absent showing of a deliberate intention to insult or disregard liberty and of no premeditated plan to kill should be appreciated.
sex of the victim.
 Findings of CA affirmed by SC. Attack my man with a deadly weapon upon Held
an unarmed and defenceless woman constitutes abuse of superior  There was conspiracy to kill, and the kidnapping used as a means towards
strength. that end. Indicia are the deprivation of liberty for several hours, the
 Because of prohibition of death penalty, sentence commuted to reclusion bringing to another place, the preparation of his grave while he was being
perpetua without eligibility for parole. Moral damages reduced from interrogated, and the fatal blow that caused him to fall into the grave. It
1million to 50,000; civil indemnity raised to 75,000 (raised if commission may also be inferred from the surrounding circumstances that del Mundo
attended by circumstances warranting imposition of death penalty) and was the mastermind.
exemplary damages of 25,000 awarded because of the aggravating  Killing is murder because [of treachery] – Miranda’s hands were tied
circumstance. when he was mortally assaulted. Appreciated also is evident
premeditation.
People vs Faustino del Mundo  Still, even without appreciating premeditation, the graver penalty of
death should still be imposed for the complex crime of kidnapping with
Facts murder because the penalty for kidnapping is more serious than that for
 Victim is Marciano Miranda, barrio captain. murder. However, the same cannot be imposed because accused is
 Seven men, led by one Macalino (alias Commander Berting), all armed, presently 78 years old.
went looking for Miranda. They eventually found him near a brook and
brought him, handcuffed, and delivered him to Commander Joe Bombay, People vs Arnulfo Fernandez
Commander Mike, and two other persons. The following day, they drove
him to Angeles city and parked the jeepney used near a bamboo grove. Facts:
Miranda was interrogated by del Mundo. He wanted to know why  Fernandez convicted of raping his first-degree cousin. He was 20 at the
Miranda was on fighting the Huk’s candidate for Congressman. Upon time and she was 13.
Miranda’s continued denial, del Mundo boxed him and also threatened to  Fernandez and AAA’s father were drinking. Fernandez gave the father
kill him. He then directed one of his companions to bind Miranda and to money to buy more wine. After he had left, Fernandez then went upstairs
bring him near the grave dug by his other companions. Miranda was told where AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping, covered her mouth,
to say his prayers. While doing so, Licup, on signal given by del Mundo, and raped her. AAA could not overpower Fernandez. Fernandez
struck Miranda, causing him to fall into the grave. They then covered the afterwards resumed drinking with AAA’s father. After Fernandez left,
grave and all perpetrators left. AAA’s father found out that she was raped by Fernandez. The incident
 More than six months later, acting on an information, the exhumation was reported to the Brgy Captain.
was supervised by Constabulary soldiers. Two corpses were found. One of  Submitted in evidence was AAA’s blanket with bloodstains and male
them was Miranda, identified by his wife and brother through the clothes, discharge.
the absence of six molars, and reddish hair.  Appellant voluntarily surrendered after one week. He contended that he
 A Constabulary investigator filed a complaint for kidnapping and serious and AAA were sweethearts, that they have had sexual intercourse since
illegal detention that was later amended to include del Mundo, who was two years prior to the incident. He also claimed that AAA was a sex
supposed to be the second highest officer of the Huks. Del Mundo was
maniac and that she initiated the sexual intercourse on the night of the station and his companions were staging a hold-up. He claimed to have
incident. never left the vehicle.
 The trial court imposed four death penalties for four counts of robbery
Held with homicide.
 Untenable. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
who is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Issues
 AAA initiated sexual intercourse – not possible because appellant himself  WON there was proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
testified that he went upstairs to where he knew AAA was sleeping with homicide.
her siblings. She could not have intiated the sexual intercourse if she were  WON conspiracy should be appreciated.
asleep.  WON the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm
 Sweetheart theory – unbelievable because at the time he alleged the has been properly alleged and should be appreciated.
start of their relationship, AAA would have only been 11 years old.
Furthermore, medical testimony found that lacerations in the hymen Held
were fresh, indicating that it was probably the victim’s first sexual  In robbery with homicide, the original intent is to commit robbery, which
experience. should precede the homicide. The homicide may occur before, during, or
 Relationship not aggravating because (Article 15) the same covers only after the robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. That the death should
brothers or sisters, and relatives by affinity in the same degree. No supervene by accident is immaterial, or that the homicide victim is other
aggravating circumstance considered. than the robbery victim, or that other crimes are committed by reason or
 Reclusion perpetua still imposed because of Article 63: where penalty is on occasion of the crime. Once homicide is committed by or on occasion
single and indivisible, the same should be imposed regardless of of the robbery, the felony becomes robbery with homicide.
mitigating or aggravating circumstances.  When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable
People vs Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide,
although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly
Facts appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.43
 Robbery with homicide. Victims were employees at a gasoline station:
Eduardo zulueta, Fortunato Lacambra, Julieta Amistoso, and Edralin  If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the
Macahis. Macahis was the security guard, shot dead. commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery
 A vehicle went to the gasoline station and after being attended, the with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide
occupants therein alighted and announced a hold-up. Lacambra was are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained
ordered to liie down, Zulueta was led to the car wash station at gunpoint from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
and robbed, and four other members of the goup went to the casher’s criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the
office. The same four shot Macahis and took his service firearm. After conspiracy once it has materialized.44
hearing successive gunshots, Zulueta saw the accused leave the place.
They boarded the same vehicle and proceeded towards San Mateo, Rizal.  The prosecution was able to prove an implied conspiracy. It is done when
The following day, Zulueta identified appellant de leon as one of the two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the
robbers who poked a gun at him. same unlawful object, each doing a part such that their combined acts
 Appellant claimed that was at his aunt’s place on the day of the crime, are connected and cooperative and indicate a closeness of personal
and that he hitched a ride with one Christian Gersalia, who was a relative. association and a concurrence of sentiment. Such conspiracy may be
When he was supposed to alight, however, he was disallowed. He fell inferred through no actual meeting amongst them to concert is proved.
asleep and the next thing he knew, he had woken up in the gasoline
 Defense of denial not appreciated. To exculpate oneself, one must  WON there was conspiracy and whether Quilaton was a part of it.
perform an overt act to dissociate or to detach himself from the
conspiracy to commit the felony and to prevent the commission thereof. Held
Mere inaction not enough. His negative testimony cannot stand against  Evidence insufficient to indict Quilaton. Testimony from Carlito Taping and
the positive one of the prosecution witnesses. his wife clearly indicate that they did not see Quilaton take part in the
 Use of unlicensed firearm is special aggravating. Existence of firearm can offence. In fact, they only saw him when they went down the stairs after
be established by mere testimony, even without the presentation of the the incident, where Quilaton came out from under the bed. Also, Carlito
firearm. However, in the present case, the use thereof was not subsequently declared in an affidavit that he did not see or notice
adequately proven. Prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that Quilaton’s participation and that Quilaton, in fact, accompanied and
appellant did not have a license to carry a firearm. assisted them to the hospital.
 Temperate damages should be paid when actual damages (esp. For  Testimony of the other accused also failed to implicate Quilaton. As it
expenses like funeral expenses) are not proved for absence of receipts, turned out, Buacon and Ahao were threatened by Mamalinging and
and when actual damages proved are less than 25,000. Quiyo to go along with their plan to kill Arturo Laus and Carlito Taping.
Quiyo and Mamalingping killed Arturo Laus, and Quiyo hacked Pio de
People vs Arnulfo Quilaton, Patricio Quiyo, Diding Mamalingping, Avelino Ahao y Juan. Buacon then struck and also shot Carlito Taping.
Latimbang, Hildo Buacon y Empong  Quilaton’s testimony, however, showed that he did indeed hit Jerry de
Juan because he thought de Juan was one of the “bad people”. There is
Facts no conspiracy between him and the other accused.
 Trial court convicted Ahao, Buacon, and Quilaton guilty of the murder of
Pio de Juan and Arturo Laos, and the frustrated murder of Jerry de Juan, PO3 Benito Sombilon vs People
Arnel Laus, and Carlito Taping.
 Diding Mamalimping and Patricio Quiyo died during the pendency of the Facts
proceedings.  A 15-year-old minor was investigated for a complaint for theft of a
 Only Quilaton appealed. necklace. She alleged that appellant took her inside a room and locked it.
 Spouses Erlinda and Carlito Taping were sleeping at the sala of the second He pointed a gun at her, barrel against her forehead, and pushed her with
floor of Erlinda’s father’s house. Arturo Laus (the father),Arnel Laus, Gerry it violently enough that her head banged against the wall. When she still
de Juan, Pio de Juan, and all of the accused were sleeping downstairs. denied taking the necklace, he took an electric wire, plugged it, and
Buacon, Quilaton, Ahao, Pio, and Mamalingping were labourers in Laus’s electrocuted her fingers with the end of the wire. She was asked the
rubber plantation. same question, which she persistently denied. Eventually, she was asked
 Erlinda awoke when she was struck by an axe. She woke her husband up, whether she was a woman. Appellant also told her that he was likewise
took a flashlight, and with it saw her husband push Buacon and single. He then proceeded to touch her body, including her breasts, belly,
Malalingping. Buacon hacked Carlito, who then pushed him and and private parts. When they left the room, appellant announced that she
Mamalingping down. Both fell down the stairs. Below, Quiyo then handed had admitted to stealing the necklace.
a firearm to Buacon, who went upstairs and shot Carlito. Thereafter, he  AAA’s mother brought her to the hospital, where she was given
gave the gun back to Quiyo. Buacon, Quiyo, and Mamalingping then ran tranquilizer. She later revealed what happened to her. The Medical
out of the house. When the spouses proceeded downstairs, they saw certificate diagnose slight physical injuries.
Arturo Laus and Pio de Juan both dead. Arnel and Gerry de Juan were  Appellant charged with acts of lasciviousness.
wounded. Carlito saw Quilaton come out from under the bed.  RTC convicted, with aggravating circumstance of acts of lasciviousness. CA
sustained, but increased the RTC maximum of 5 years 4 months 21 days
Issues of prision correccional to maximum of 6 years prision correccional.
 WON evidence was sufficient to find Quilaton guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Issues
 WON accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. pleaded with his wife to return home but she refused. When he
 WON the aggravating circumstance of advantage of public position should attempted to take the child from her, she threw it to the ground. Thus
be appreciated angered, he used a piece of wood nearby to hit his wife until she fell to
the ground with severe chest pains. Realizing what he had done, he
Held brought her and the infant home, and tried to alleviate her pains. She still
 Not simply unjust vexation as appellant would contend. His acts clearly died.
pointed to one of a lewd nature. Furthermore, in acts of lasciviousness, it  He voluntarily surrendered and also brought with him the piece of wood
is not necessary that the intimidation be irresistible. It is enough that used to bear this wife. During the trial, he first pleaded not guilty, but
some compulsion equivalent to intimidations subdues the free exercise by when the case was called for trial changed his plea to a guilty one.
the offended party of her will. Contention also that the locus crimini  The lower court found three mitigating circumstances: voluntary
(police station) makes commission of the act unlikely is untenable. surrender, plea of guilty, and acting upon an impulse so powerful so as to
“Lust...is no respecter of either place or time.” produce passion and obfuscation. He was imposed the penalty of
 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 110 Sections 8 and 9, effective reclusion perpetua. The trial court recommended executive clemency
December 1, 2000, provides that qualifying and aggravating after service of the minimum of the medium penalty of prision mayor.
circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in complaint or  Accused appealed.
information to be considered by the trial court in its judgment. However,
the court, in People vs Buayaban, gave the provision retroactive effect Issue
because it benefited the accused. The same must be done in the present  WON to apply Article 49, which prescribes the proper penalty where the
case, which was committed in 1998. crime committed is different from that intended. He contended that he
 ISLAW: prision correccional for acts of lasciviousness. No aggravating or should have been imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal for the
mitigating – imposed in medium period. Final sentence: arresto mayor to offense intended: qualified physical injuries.
prision correccional medium.  WON appellant is entitled to the benefits of ISLAW
 Exemplary damages should be paid when the commission was attended
by one or more aggravating circumstances. However, a provision to the Held
same effect in the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure should not be given  Article 4 and not Article 49 should be applicable. Article 4: criminal
retroactive effect because it would violate the rights of the private liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the
offended party, which has already become vested. In the present case, wrongful act be different from that which he intended and that the
exemplary damages should be paid. Moral damages assumed in acts of accused is liable for all the consequences of his felonious acts. Article 49
lasciviousness. is applicable only to cases where the crime committed is different from
that intended and the felony befalls a different person.
People vs Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon  Not entitled to ISLAW. Can only hope for commutation of sentence to
qualify for parole.
Facts
 Victim is accused’s wife, Magdalena de los Santos
 Convicted of parricide
 Magdalena wanted to sell the conjugal home because she wanted the
family to transfer to the house of her parents. Jaime refused because he
did not want to leave the house they were currenly residing at and also
had many improvements thereon. One day he left to work in the farm,
and upon his return discovered his wife and their three-month-old baby
gone. When he looked for them, he saw them at a trail 200 metres from
their home, his wife bringing the child and a bundle of clothes. He
 Robbery with homicide.
People vs Artemio Elloraba, Arturo Manaog, and Zosimo Miranda  Victim was Liew Soon Ping. Hands and feet were tied. Towel was tied
around mouth. COD was asphyxiation by suffocation with an impacted
Facts bolus and compression of the neck with a broad clothing around the
 Charge for murder. neck.
 Victim is Dominador Galvez.  Police inquired around the vicinity and were able to name three suspects:
 Witnesses are Antonio Ladan, who was passing by, Marcelino Ngoho, the Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, Asteria Avila, and a fourth unidentified
victim’s brother-in-law, who was travelling along the road of the scene of suspect. They were tracked to Samar and Leyte. Lacsinto (who admitted
the crime when it happened, and Letitia Galvez, the victim’s wife. and narrated the incident) and the three other suspects were
 Antonio saw Elloraba shoot Dominador while the latter’s back was apprehended and brought to Manila. Opero likewise confessed his
turned. When Dominador fell to the ground, he and Letitia saw Manaog involvement and said that it was Lacsinto who subdued the victim by
turn Dominador face up and, armed with a small bolo, stabbed him. assaulting her, tying her up, stabbing her, and stuffing her mouth with a
Mirando followed suit. The three then fled the scene. piece of pandesal. Avila denied being a party thereto. The incident was
 Ngoho was, at the time of the shooting, on his motorcycle. He saw re-enacted, Opero and Lacsinto playing their respective parts.
Elloraba shoot Dominador from behind, saw Manaog turn the falled body  Diego Opero was imposed the death sentence for robbery with homicide;
face up and stab it. Ngoho thereafter turned his motorcycle around and Lacsinto and Villegas did not appeal their conviction for a lesser penalty,
did not see Miranda stab Dominador. and Avila was acquitted.

Issues Issues
 WON there was irreconcilable differences between the testimonies of the  WON Opero’s contention that he should only be liable for robbery
prosecution witnesses – two saw Miranda partake of the commission, because of lack of intention to kill the victim is tenable.
while one did not.  WON Article 49 is applicable in connection with the above issue.
 WON abuse of superior strength and conspiracy should be appreciated.
Held
Held  Untenable. It has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate
 There is no inconsistency. Ladan and Letitia saw the entire thing while connection exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of
Ngoho, who turned around before Miranda could strike the victim, saw which of the two precedes the other, or whether they are committed at
only a part of the events. the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime is
 Conspiracy was alleged in the information was a way of increasing robbery with homicide. When death supervenes by reason or on occasion
criminal liability. There is conspiracy in the present case, the acts of the of the robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere
accused all showing concert to achieve a common purpose – the killing of accident. What is important and decisive is that death results by reason
Dominador. or on occasion of the robbery.
 Treachery is also appreciated. The victim was unarmed, shot from behind,  If the circumstances indicate no intent to kill, the mitigating circumstance
and stabbed when he was lying down, defenceless. Abuse of superior of not having intended to commit so grave so wrong may be appreciated
strength is absorbed in treachery. (Article 13). Article 49 applies only when the crime befalls a person
different from the intended victim.
People vs Diego Opero y Co Sipag  One mitigating: no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Two
aggravating: abuse of superior strength and dwelling. After offsetting,
Facts there is still one aggravating left. The higher penalty of reclusion penalty
 Security guards discovered the body when they tried to return a little girl to death should be imposed. Death penalty imposed by the lower court
they saw loitering in the second floor of the building to the room where therefore affirmed.
she was said to reside.