49. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, Oct.

29, 1982
FACTS
In the afternoon of November 17, 1971 Romeo Castro, a barrio captain of San Juan, Pili,
Camarines Sur, saw the victim Ferdinand Recoco, a 9 year old boy, boxing his 4 years old son.
Because he was carried away by the impetus of the moment he boxed the victim once in the right
eye. The victim was brought to the hospital but died 13 days later due to Septicemia secondary
to pan-opthalmitis due to trauma. The appellant vehemently denied the prosecution’s statement
that he delivered several blows and a “karate chop” to the victim. He alleged that he only hit the
victim once in the face and pushed him away.

ISSUE
WON the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, convicting Romeo Castro of
the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentencing him "to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is proper.
HELD
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Treachery –( NO) for treachery to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it must be
established that the means, method or manner of execution of the offense was deliberately and
consciously adopted in order to make it impossible or difficult for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. In the case at bar, appellant had neither the opportunity nor the reason to plan or deliberate
on the mode of execution of the crime because he undoubtedly acted at the impulse of the moment
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong – (YES) Taking into consideration the circumstances
under which the appellant's act was executed, as well as the marked disproportion between the
means employed and the ultimate consequence thereof, the appellant's claim that he merely
intended to chastise Ferdinand, and not to do away with him, deserves the fullest credence.
Passion and Obfuscation. - (YES) when the appellant saw his son Ely being boxed by Ferdinand,
a much bigger boy, and that the latter was in the act of delivering another blow, the appellant,
momentarily blinded by anger, lost sight of the fact that his son's adversary was but a 9-year old boy.
Clearly, when appellant hit the deceased, he did so on the impulse of passion and obfuscation.
DECISION

Under the circumstances aforementioned, the SC hold that appellant is guilty only of the crime of
homicide, mitigated by two mitigating circumstances, to wit:

The judgment appealed from is hereby modified in the sense that appellant Romeo Castro is hereby
declared guilty of the crime of homicide; and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, he is hereby sentenced to a term of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correcional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum,
to indemnify the heirs of deceased Ferdinand Recoco in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
50. CD People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. Nos. 131736-37, March 11, 2002
FACTS
For automatic review is the joint decision1 dated May 2, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, in Criminal Cases No. 6150-AF and No. 6151-AF, convicting
appellants Joey and Mario Manlasing of two counts of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of death for each count.
Appellants are brothers. For four years they were tenants of the spouses Magin2 and Jorja
Soriano (victims).

While giving credence to the confession of Mario Manlansing that he killed the couple, the trial court
disbelieved appellant's claim that he alone did both killings and that Joey had no participation therein.
Instead, it relied on a chain of circumstances to show that appellants conspired to kill the Sorianos,
and committed the crimes pursuant to that conspiracy.

ISSUE

WON:

 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOEY

MANLANSING IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6150-AF AND 6151-AF DESPITE THE FACT THAT
HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NIGHTTIME.
 THE TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.
 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY UPON
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS MARIO MANLANSING AND JOEY MANLANSING.

HELD
The SC agree with the trial court and the OSG that the chain of circumstances, all of which have
already been discussed, can only lead to the conclusion that Joey and Mario cooperated to
commit the killings. To summarize, they are: (1) the medico-legal officer's testimony that two
different bladed weapons were used, (2) his finding that one person alone could not have inflicted
the wounds simultaneously, (3) the recovery of two distinct bladed weapons, (4) Joey's admission
that he boxed Jorja (4) both appellants' admission that they searched the victims' belongings for
cash and valuables, (5) the presence of Joey's fingerprints at the scene of the crime, and (6) the
testimony of the balut vendor that he saw the brothers with bloodstained shirts leaving the locus
criminis together. Thus, we find no error committed by the trial court in holding that both appellants
had conspired and are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of killing Magin and Jorja Soriano.
However, the SC are unable to agree now with the trial court that the offenses committed
by appellants could be qualified as murder.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The SC note that abuse of superior strength and dwelling were not alleged in the
informations. In accordance then with Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, abuse of superior strength and dwelling may not be appreciated to convict the
brothers. Further, should there be a finding of treachery, then abuse of superior strength is
absorbed by the former. The court are thus left to review only the allegation that the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and nocturnity were present in the commission
of the crimes.
At the outset, we shall discount nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance, since in this
case, the darkness of the night was not purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate the
commission of the crime nor to ensure its execution with impunity.

The court reiterate at this juncture, however, that the evident premeditation and the treachery in the
present cases may only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Voluntary Surrender – (Mario) (NO) For voluntary surrender to be a mitigating circumstance, the
following must concur: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered
himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.56 Recall that after the killings,
Mario went into hiding in Paniqui, Tarlac and only surrendered after the Cabanatuan City police
were tipped on his whereabouts and sent a team to arrest him. He did not spare the authorities
the trouble and expense necessary to search and capture him. Clearly, Mario's surrender was neither
spontaneous nor voluntary. Thus, the OSG was correct when it said that Mario did not voluntarily
surrender.

Voluntary Surrender – (Mario) (YES) The trial court did err when it failed to appreciate Mario's
plea of guilty to the two charges against him. Under Article 13 (7)57 of the Code, a plea of guilty on
arraignment is a mitigating circumstance.

In Joey's case, no mitigating circumstance could be appreciated in his favor for unlike his brother he
did not plead guilty. Two generic aggravating circumstances, evident premeditation and treachery,
are thus to be considered against him. Applying Article 64, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code,60 and
the Indeterminate Sentence Law Joey shall serve the same indeterminate sentence as Mario.

Decision of Trial Court MODIFIED. Appellants Mario Manlansing and Joey Manlansing are each
declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of HOMICIDE defined in Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.
51. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco L. Calpito, G.R. No. 123298, November 27, 2003

FACT
On appeal is the decision dated July 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in
Criminal Case No. 91-01-59 finding appellant Francisco Calpito alias "Francis" guilty of the crime
of Murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On or about the 21st day of November, 1990, in the City of Tacloban the accused rob, take and carry
away a shoulder bag containing cash in the amount of ₱15,000 and jewelries amounting to P30,000
belonging to Florentina Villas; that on the occasion of said robbery the accused stabbed the victim to
death.

ISSUE:

WON the court a quo erred in convicting the accused of the crime of murder despite the absence of
any qualifying circumstance.

WON the court a quo erred in not appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
interposed by the defense.

HELD

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

Abuse of Superior Strenght – (YES) A perusal of the facts of the case readily reveals that abuse of
superior strength attended the crime where the abuse of superior strength is evident from the notorious
disparity between the relative strength of the victim, a 74-year-old unarmed woman, and the assailant,
a young man armed with a knife.

Treachery – (NO) With respect to treachery, this Court holds that it cannot be considered in the
present case. This circumstance cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events
after the attack happened, but not the manner the attack commenced or how the act which resulted in
the victim’s death unfolded.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Minority – (YES) The Court emphasizes that while the submitted birth certificate is not entirely
satisfactory, a careful review of the records reveals other evidence of appellant’s minority. Accordingly,
the mitigating circumstance of minority should, as a matter of fairness, be appreciated in favor of
appellant, especially in light of the compassionate liberality this Court has granted to minors involved
in serious crimes
52. People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003
FACTS
This is an automatic review of the joint decision,1 dated March 10, 1998, of the Regional Trial
Court (Branch 27), Cabanatuan City. Court finds and so holds that the accused JUANITO IBAÑEZ
Y GARTICIANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime[s] of MURDER and FRUSTRATED
MURDER and sentences him to suffer the penalty of:
1. DEATH in Criminal Case No. 7564 (AF), and for him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
offended party in the amount of ₱50,000.00, and the amount of ₱100,000.00 representing actual
damages.
No moral damages are awarded as the same is subsumed in the civil indemnity for death (People
vs. R. Daen, G.R. No. 112015, 26 May 1995).
2. 12 years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal in Criminal Case No. 7563
(AF), and for him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ₱50,000.00, as moral damages,
and the amount of ₱13,599.00, as actual expenses.
On or about the 17th day of October, 1996, at 3:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at
Poblacion West, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, Philippines the accused hacked the spouses FELIX
AYROSO OLANDA and ROSARIO ESPINOZA OLANDA while they are asleep in their own house.
The husband survived due to timely medical attendance while his wife unfortunately died.

ISSUE

WON the trial court seriously erred in not applying mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender, voluntary confession of guilt and intoxication in favor of the accused.

HELD
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and dwelling were not alleged in the
information. By virtue of its amendment, effective December 1, 2000, Section 8, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now provides that aggravating circumstances must be alleged
in the information, otherwise they cannot be considered against the accused even if they were
proven during the trial. Being favorable to appellant, this Rule, as amended, should be applied
retroactively. Besides, where there is treachery, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is deemed absorbed in treachery.
Treachery - (YES The Court finds that the trial court correctly held that treachery attended the killing
of Rosario Olanda and the frustrated killing of her husband Felix. There is treachery where the victim
was killed while he was asleep.

Evident premeditation - (NO) as aggravating circumstance, the prosecution must prove (a) the time
when the offender determined to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination, and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution,
to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of this act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will. In the case at bar, no proof has been adduced to establish that appellant had
previously planned the killing of the spouses. There is no evidence when and how he planned and
prepared for the same, nor was there a showing that sufficient time had lapsed between his
determination and execution. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation ought
not to have been considered by the trial court.

Disregard of the respect due the offended parties on account of age and cruelty - (NO) The test
in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and
sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission and
inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Voluntary surrender - (NO) to be a mitigating circumstance, the following must concur: (1) the
offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
and (3) the surrender was voluntary.1âwphi1 Surrender, to be deemed voluntary, must be
spontaneous, the accused submitting his person unconditionally to the authorities with an
acknowledgment of his guilt and with the intent to save them the trouble and expense of effecting his
capture. After the incident in question, appellant went to Pulilan, Bulacan and only surrendered after
the Aliaga, Nueva Ecija police were tipped on his whereabouts and sent a team to arrest him. He did
not spare the authorities the trouble and expense necessary to search and capture him. Clearly,
appellant’s surrender was neither spontaneous nor voluntary.

Plea of guilty - (YES) must be taken into consideration in imposing the proper penalty. Article
13(7) requires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Intoxication - (NO) to be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be proved.51 In the
case at bar, appellant merely alleged that when the offenses were committed, he was so drunk.
However, his self-serving statement in the extrajudicial confession was not corroborated by other
evidence.

DECISION

In sum, treachery qualified the killing and frustrated killing to murder. There are no aggravating
circumstances attendant in this case. There is however plea of guilty, as a generic mitigating
circumstance, which should be considered in favor of appellant.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 27) of Cabanatuan City in Criminal Cases Nos. 7563
and 7564 finding appellant Juanito Ibañez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder
beyond reasonable doubt is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

In Criminal Case No. 7563, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six years and one day of prision mayor, as MININUM, to twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal as MAXIMUM.
In Criminal Case No. 7564, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.