VALENZUELA V.
People of the Philippines In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Facts:(Tinga, J.)
The case stems from an Information charging petitione r Aristotel Valenzu ela
(petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft. On 19 May 1994,
at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale
Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by
Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open
parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an
identification card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent of the well-kno wn “Tide” brand. Petitio ner unloaded
these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then
returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the
open parking space.
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and
directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded
the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these
acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open
parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,
petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident . Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items
seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25
grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate
value of P12,090.00.
Petitioner and Calderon were first brought to the SM security office before they were
transferred on the same day to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police,
Quezon City, for investigation. It appears from the police investigation records that
apart from petitioner and Calderon, four (4) other persons were apprehended by the
security guards at the scene and delivered to police custody at the Baler PNP
Station in connection with the incident. However, after the matter was referred to the
Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor, only petitioner and Calderon were charged
with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor, in Informations prepared on 20 May
1994, the day after the incident.
Quezon City, Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2)
years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as
maximum. The RTC found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
and established the convictions on the positive identification of the accused as
perpetrators of the crime.
Issue:
WON petitioner Valenzuela is guilty only of frustrated theft.
Held:
Petition dismissed. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is
no crime of frustrated theft. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on
our acceptance of the Diño and Flores rulings, his petition must be denied, for we
decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. That it has taken all these years for
us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code
does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It will take considerable
amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be
recognized. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative
intent.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
Rodolfo Velasco vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 166479 February 28, 2006
Facts:
(Chico-Nazario)on April 19, 1998, at 7:30 am, complainant Frederick Maramba
was cleaning his owner-type jeep when a tricycle stopped near him. Rodolfo
Velasco got out, approached Maramba, and then shot at him, wounding him on his
upper left arm. He continued shooti ng even though Maramba was running away
from him, but he missed. He went back to the tricycle and told the driver to go to
Brgy. Banaoang in Calasiao. The incident was reported to the police, who pursued
the accused and caught up with him. Frederick Maramba, complain ant, and
Armando Maramba (AM for brevity), the tricycle driver, both identified him as the
one responsible. According to AM, he was picked up by the accused, ordered him to
go to the place where the complainant was, then got out and fired at complainant,
went back to the tricycle, ordered him to go to Calasiao, then alighted and took
another tricycle. This testimony reinforced the earlier statement given by
complainant.
The defense of the accused was that on April 18, 1998, stayed at the house of a
friend in Lingayen, Pangasinan. He left tomorrow morning, April 19, at between 6:00
to 7:00, riding a Volkswagen car of one Berting Soriano, dropping him off at
Banaoang diversion road. He took a tricycle to the foot of the bridge in Bayambang.
While on the way to Calasiao, he was stopped by three men, with guns pointed at
him, who introduced themselves as police. They brought him back to the police
station, interrogated him (accused denied having fired at complainant), and put him
in the Dagupan City Jail.
Issue:
WON the defenses of denial and alibi are enough to warrant acquittal of the
accused
WON the conviction of the accused should be for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE only,
not ATTEMPTED MURDER
Held:
Petition denied. Decision of trial court and CA is herby affirmed.
Ruling:
No. The testimonies given by the complainant and Armando Maramba are enough
to warrant conviction of the accused. His alibi was not at all strong, as his said
whereabouts during the time of the crime was merely 10 minutes away; therefore it
is not impossible for him to go to the place where the shooting commenced. No
matter how he denies having taken part in the shooting, no matter what alibi he
thinks of, the statements of eyewitnesses will always be held credible. It was
positive identification coming from two eyewitnesses; therefore his denial and alibi
cannot stand.
No. One of the pre-requisites of murder is treachery, wherein there is a swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim. The complainant was washing his jeep until suddenly the accused
fired at him for no reason at all. Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts
but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of
some cause other that his own desistance, the accused committed an attempted
felony. With a sudden attack of seven shots, it was held that he had the intent to kill,
but failed to perform all acts of execution because of reasons independent of his will
(i.e. poor aim and swiftness of the complainant while running). Although attaining a
wound on his left arm, it was not sufficient to cause death, thereby making it only
attempted.
RIVERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006
Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, Edgardo Rivera
Respondent: People of the Philippines (Ruben Rodil)
Facts:
(CALLEJO, SR., J.:) One afternoon Ruben Rodil went to a store to buy food.
Edgardo mocked him of being jobless and dependent to his wife, which resulted to
a heated exchange of words. The next day when Ruben, together with his 3 year
old daughter, went to the store again to buy food and look for his wife; suddenly,
Esmeraldo and his two brothers emerged from their house and ganged up on
Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael mouled Ruben with fist blows and while he fell to
the ground and in helpless position Edgardo hit Ruben with cement hollow blocks
in the head 3 times, while Esmeraldo and Ruben continued mauling Ruben. A
policeman on board a mobile car arrived Edgardo, Esmeraldo, and Ruben fled to
their house. Ruben was brought to the hospital and his attending physician
declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds in the head, cerebral concussion
or contusion, hematoma on the left upper buttocks and other superficial injuries.
The doctor declared that the lacerated wound in the head was slight and superficial
and would heal from one day to seven days.
The Rivera brothers testified a different story, that Ruben arrived at Esmeraldo’s
house and banged the gate. Ruben challenged him and his brothers came out and
fight. When Esmeraldo came out to talked to Ruben, he punched him. They
wrestled and fell to the ground, and during the process Ruben’s head hit the lamp
post. And when his wife arrived they leave.
The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
frustrated murder sentencing them to an imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 8
years with civil indemnity of P30,000.00.
The accused appealed to the CA and the CA modified the RTC’s decision that the
accused was guilt y of ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentenced to 2 years
imprisonment to 6 years and 1 day and all other decisions of the RTC was affirmed.
The accused petitioned with the Supreme Court alleging that the prosecution failed
to prove that they had the intention to kill Ruben when they mauled and hit him with
a hollow block. They also said that based on the testimony of the attending
physician of Ruben, he only sustained superficial wounds; hence, they should only
be held criminally liable for physical injuries. Furthermore they also contend that
even if they had the intent to kill Ruben, the prosecution failed to prove treachery;
hence, they should only be held guilty of attempted homicide.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused should held guilty of physical injuries or attempted
homicide only.
Held:
The decision of the CA was affirmed with modification that petitioners should suffer
an indeterminate penalty of 2 years imprisonment as minimum to 9 years and 4
months as maximum.
Ruling:
On the first assigned error that the p rosecution failed to proved the petitioners intent
to kill Ruben: according to the attending physician, Ruben could have been killed if
the hollow block directly hit his head, and if the police did not arrived which caused
the Rivera siblings to scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause
death, but the intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown
by the fact that the 3 brothers helped each other too maul the defenseless victim,
and even after he had fallen to the ground; that one of them picked up a cement
hollow block and hit Ruben on the head 3 times, and that it was only the arrival of
the policemen that made the 3 brothers to desist from their concerted act of trying to
kill Ruben. And also based on the testimonies of the witnesses, it was revealed the
suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of the petitioners.
The petitioners also contends that the victim sustained only superficial injuries and,
thus, not life threatening. The Supreme Court held that the nature of injury does not
negate the intention to kill. Even if Edgardo did not hit the victim squarely on the
head, petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder. The last paragraph
of Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus:
“There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous deistance.”
The Supreme Court also rejects the 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 3 year
old daughter, without knowledge 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 3 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.
Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the heated exchange of
words between him and petitioner Edgardo Rivera a day before. There being
conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them.
Adelmo Perez y Agustin, petitioner
vs
Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondent
G.R. No. 143838
May 9, 2002
Facts:
Petitioner has been convicted by the trial court for attempted rape. On his appeal,
the Court of appeals only affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this petition.
On April 14, 1988 in Morong, Bataan, petitioner Adelmo Perez (uncle of Julita )
forcibly commenced the commission of the crime of rape upon Julia Tria y Balagao.
The petitioner entered the room of Julita Tria without permission and once inside,
embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast and compelled
her to lie down where he kissed her lips and neck. He positioned himself on top of
her and with the intent of having carnal knowledge with her, he touched her sex
organ and tried to remove her panties thereby commencing the commission of the
crime of rape directly by overt acts. Thereafter, Julita Tria shouted “inay”, trying to
implore the help of her mother. Julita’s mother came crashing to the room and found
Perez under the bamboo bed.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the crime committed by the petitioner was an attempted rape or an
act of lasciviousness; and
Whether or not the prosecution was able to present a quantum proof necessary to
establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
The petitioners acts of lying on top of Julita, embracing and kissing her, mashing her
breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ do not
constitute attempted rape since there was no forced entry of the penis to Julita’s sex
organ. The medical examination conducted on Julita Tria presented no evidence of
any insertion or penetration of her sexual organ, only bruises. The act merely
constitutes an act of lasciviousness, the elements of which are:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
2. (a)that it is done by forece and intimidation or (b)when the offended
party is deprived of reason otherwise unconscious, or (c)when the offended party is
under 12 years of age
3. that the offended party is another person of either sex.
The act of Adelm o Perez satis fies all the elements for an act of
lasciviousness. His contention that what he committed was not an attempted rape
but merely an act of lasciviousness is meritorious. Wherefore, the decisions of the
lower courts are modified. Adelmo Perez is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness as defined and penalized under Art. 366 of the
RPC punishable by 6 months of arresto mayor.
PEOPLE V. ALMAZAN, G.R. Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001,365 SCRA
3 73
Facts:(Bellosillo,J)
On 28 September 1996, at about 4:00pm, Vicente Madriaga and a certain Allan
played chess. In that scenario Noli with her daughter, Noel and their neighbor Angel
Soliva were also there. While the game was ongoing, Henry Almazan unexpectedly
arrived and brandished a .38 caliber revolver in front of the group. Almazan's
fighting cocks had just been stolen and he suspected Angel, one of the spectators,
to be the culprit. Thus he said, "manos-manos na lang tayo," aimed his gun at Angel
and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed.
At that moment, Vicente Madriaga stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but he
refused to be pacified. Angel ran away and Henry aimed his gun instead at Noli. Noli
cried for mercy, for his life and that of his daughter, but to no avail. Henry shot Noli
at the left side of his stomach sending him immediately to the ground. His daughter,
unscathed, held on to Noli, crying. Henry then turned on Noel and shot him on the
left thigh. Noel managed to walk lamely but only to eventually fall to the ground.
Thereafter, Vicente Madriaga called on his neighbors who brought Noli and Noel to
the hospital. Noli however died before reaching the hospital, while Noel survived his
injuries.
Witnesses for the defense narrated a different version which in favor in the side of
Almazan. Almazan also stated that he just did self-defense, but his testimony and
his friend testimony (Johnald Molina) were not accepted.
Issue:
*WON Almazan committed murder, frustrated murder or attempted murder?
*WON Almazan testimony can be consider as a self-defense.
Held:
*Almazan committed murder. Frustrated murder is modified by lowering the crime to
Attempted Murder.
*Almazan’s statement that what he did is just a self-defense shows no merit.
Ruling:
Accused should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated murder. For the
charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sustain a fatal wound that
could have caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance. The court a
quo anchored its ruling on the statement of Dr. Ticman on cross-examination that
the wound of Noel could catch infection or lead to his death if not timely and
properly treated. However, in his direct testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that the
wound was a mere minor injury for which Noel, after undergoing treatment, was
immediately advised to go home. He even referred to the wound as a slight physical
injury that would heal within a week and for which the victim was in no danger of
dying. Clear as the statement is, coupled with the fact that Noel was indeed
immediately advised to go home as he was not in any danger of death, we have no
reason to doubt the meaning and implications of Dr. Ticman' s statement. His
statement that Noel could catch infection was b ased on pure speculation rather than
on the actual nature of the wound which was a mere minor injury, hence, not fatal.
According to jurisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an injury that was not
fatal, and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted.
PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN
En Banc –Unanimous Decision
329 SCRA 270, G.R. No. 129433
30 March 2000
Facts: (J. Bellosillo)
As Corazon is preparing drinks, she heard her daughter, Crysthel, crying “Aray ko!
Aray Ko!” prompting Corazon to run upstairs. She saw Primo Campuhan kneeling
before Crysthel whose pajamas were already removed while his short pants were
down to his knees. Primo ran but was apprehended. Physical Examination revealed
negative results. No sign of entry in Crysthel’s organ. Although Primo insisted on
his innocence, the trial court found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the
extreme penalty of death, and ordered him to pay the victim damages and costs.
Campuhan assails the credibility of Corazon. He argues that her narration should
not be given any weight since it contains improbabilities inconsistent with human
nature and experience. He claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to commit
the rape considering that Crysthel's younger sister was also in the room playing
while Corazon was just downstairs preparing drinks for her daughters. Their
presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact that the episode happened
within the family compound where a call for assistance could easily be heard and
responded to, would have been enough to deter him from committing the crime.
Hence this petition.
Issue:
WON Primo is guilty of consummated or attempted rape.
Held:
The Decision of the Court finding primo guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him
death and to pay damages was modified. The SC found him guilty of ATTEMPTED
RAPE and sentenced him imprisonment of 8 years.
Ruling:
Rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the
victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were
already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed
all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Perfect penetration
was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however
slight, was sufficient. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the
crime to its consummated stage. Complete or full penetration of the vagina is not
required for rape to be consummated. Where entry into the labia or the lips of the
female genitalia has not been established, the crime committed amounts merely to
attempted rape.
The SC seriously doubted on the veracity of Corazon’s claim that she saw the inter-
genital contact between Primo and Crysthel. It is the burden of the prosecution to
establish how Corazon could have seen the sexual contact. The prosecution failed
in this respect, thus the SC cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that
inter-genital contact was achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve the doubt
in favor of the prosecution but to prejudice the constitutional right of the accused to
be presumed innocent.
Although a child's testimony must be received with due consideration on account of
her tender age, the Court endeavors at the same time to harness only what in her
story appears to be true, acutely aware of the equally guaranteed rights of the
accused. Even on the basis of the testimony of Crysthel alone the accused cannot
be held liable for consummated rape; worse, be sentenced to death.
In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both
should in all respects complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial
evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate,
would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to
carefully ascert ain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial
threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated.
Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape
will significantly disappear.
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted
when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
All the elements of attempted rape — and only of attempted rape — are present in
the instant case, hence, the accused should be punished only for it.
People vs. De la Cruz
Facts:
Accused Rosemarie de la Cruz was caught holding by the hand Whiazel Soriano, a
seven-year old schoolgirl, and leading her out of the school grounds. At the request
of the principal, five policemen brought accused to the station. Accused pleaded not
guilty before the RTC. There were 5 who served as principal witnesses for the
prosecution. First was Cecilia Caparos, neighbor of Whiazel. According to her, she
was waiting for her two children when she saw Whiazel held on the hand and being
led away by Rosemarie. Cecilia asked the accused where she was going with
Whiazel. The accused told her that she asked Whiazel to bring her to Rowena
Soriano (Whiazle’s mother) while on the other, Whiazel told her that the accused
requested her to look for the latter’s child. Cecilia grew suspicious because of the
inconsistent answers, Whiazel’s terrified look, and scratches on the child’s face.
Cecilia then brought accused to the guidance counselor. The accused agreed to go
with her. Second was Whiazel Soriano, who testified that she voluntarily went with
the accused after being asked for help in looking for the school dentist. She also
mentioned that accused asked for help in looking for her child in a place far away
from school. She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way by the accused but
when she told her that she wanted to go, accused refused and held her hand.
Whiazel cried when they reached the teacher. Third was Eufemia Magpantay,
guidance teacher of the school. She confirmed that the incident was reported to her
office. Accused told her that she was asking for Whiazel’s help in looking for the
school dentist. This reason was reiterated before the principal. Magpantay testified
that school allows patients not connected with the school to consult at the clinic.
Fourth testimony was from Gorgonia Nieva, mother-in-law of the accused. She
testified that the day prior to the incident, accused asked her to look for Dr. Medina,
a dentist, because the latter’s child was sick. Her inquiries that Dr. Medina may be
found at the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School (place of incident). Thus, the next
day, they both went to that school but parted ways when they arrived there. And
lastly, the accused gave her own testimony. She testified that when she got to the
school she asked a guard where the clinic was. When she got to the clinic, no one
was there. On her way out, Whiazel walked with her at arm’s length. She did not
hold the child’s hand, not looked at the child, they did not talk, not even smiles were
exchanged. Then Cecilia suddenly came up accusing her of kidnapping. Cecilia
dragged her to the guidance counselor’s office and she voluntarily went with her.
When the guidance counselor asked Whiazel if the accused was really going to
kidnap her, she answered no. Lending credence to the testimony of the witnesses,
the trial court rendered accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor.
Accused contended that her act of holding the child by hand and leading her out of
the school cannot be considered kidnapping. Whiazel even testified she voluntarily
went with her and that she did not try t kidnap her. The guidance counselor
confirmed that outsiders can consult in the school’s clinic thus she had a valid
reason to be there.
The people, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that Whaizel was still
deprived of her liberty no matter how short that time was because the accused
prevented Whaizel to go to her neighbor. Considering the young age of the victim,
deprivation of liberty was really consummated even without force or threats
imposed.
Issue:
Whether or not RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of kidnapping and illegal
detention of a minor and granting 50,000 pesos as moral damages
Held:
In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the
latter’s liberty needs to be established by INDUBITABLE PRROF
Well entrenched rule that factual findings by the court, especially testimony of
witnesses, are accorded great respect. But when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts, THE COURT MAY CHOOSE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN
FINDINGS.
Damages are granted to compensate victim for the injury suffered, but PROOF OR
MORAL SUFFERING must be introduced.
Decision: Manero shot to death Fr. Favali. Finally, they joined Norberto Manero, Jr. and
Edilberto Manero in their enjoyment and merriment on the death of the priest.
decision modified. Accused is guilty of ATTEMPTED kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. Award for moral damages of 50,000 pesos is hereby deleted. The court found the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay,
Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo
G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993 Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño GUILTY beyond reasonable
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESplaintif-appelee, doubt of the offense of Murder;Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commande r Bucay
vs. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Arson; Norberto Manero, Jr.,
NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO, ROGER BEDAÑO, Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño
RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted Murder.
DOE,accused.
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO and ROGER In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines,
BENDAÑO,accused-appellants.
Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño contend that the trial court erred in disregarding
their respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to
BELLOSILLO,J.: establish that there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was Fr.
Peter Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one (1) gunman, Edilberto;
FACTS: and, that there was absolutel y no showing that appellants cooperated in the
The Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia, shooting of the victim despite their proximity at the time to Edilberto.
Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño, conferred with
Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato, ISSUE:
and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards plan to liquidate a number of suspected
communist sympathizers. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the defenses of alibi of the appellants.
following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate,
Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian
HELD:
priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino
Robles, a Catholic lay leader; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the
Accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines and Roger Bedaño alleged that they
others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to
were no present in the cime and contend that it was only after they heard gunshots
Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another
that they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr.and joined by their fellow
Italian priest would be killed in his stead.
CHDF members and co-accused, and that it was only then that they proceeded
together to where the crime took place at Km. 125. But, two witnesses appeared
At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil), and testi fied that they saw and heard the discussion about killing of some
Edilberto Manero together with Norberto Manero, Jr. shot Robles. They surrounded communist sympathizers. They also testified that they still saw the appellants in the
the house of Domingo Gomez where Robles fled and hid, but later left when company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when Rufino
Edilberto Manero told them to leave as Robles would die of hemorrhage. At 5:00 Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon, appellants were very
o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero brothers, when Fr. Favali
house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleñago towed the was brutally murdered. So the alibis of the appellants were negative in nature and
motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr. burned the cannot be prevail. Also, there was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy.
motorcycle. And later stood guard with their firearms ready on the road, Edilberto RULING:The act of one is the act of all. There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it It is not
essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the
offense. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is
singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present. AFFIRMED
PEOPLE V. PUGAY
167 SCRA 439
17 November 1988
Facts:(Medialdea, J.)
Pugay and Samso n were charged with the crime of Murder for the death of
Benjamin Miranda by the CFI.
Sometime after midnight of May 19, 1982, Pugay & Samson with several
companions arrived at the town fiesta fair. They appeared to be drunk. When the
group saw Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, walking nearby, they started making
fun of him. They made him dance by tickling him with a piece of wood in his ass.
Suddenly, Pugay took a can of gasoline under the ferris wheel and poured its
contents on the body of Miranda. Then, Samson set Miranda on fire making a
human torch out of him.
The accused attacked the credibility of the eyewitness, Gabion, alleging that he was
not only requested by the mother of the deceased to testify in exchange for his
absolution from liability but also because his testimony that he was reading a comic
book during an unusual event is contrary to human behavior and experience.
The accused also contested that they were maltreated by the police into admitting
authorship of the crime.
The accused also pointed out that there were a lot of other witnesses but why is it
that only Gabion’s statement was presented.
Issue:
WON the court erred in finding the accused guilty of muder qualified with treachery
Held:
The judgment is affirmed with modifications indicated below:
P13,940 – hospitalization
P30,000 – indemnity for death
P10,000 – moral damages
P5,000 – exemplary damages
Ruling:
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code:
“A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his
acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then
through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone
might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through
culpable abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his
fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.”
There is nothing in the records that shows that there was a precious
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention bet the two accused
immediately before the crime. There was no animosit y and their meeting at
the scen e of the crime was accidental. They only want to make fun of the
deceased.
Pugay and Samson are only liable for the a ct committed by them.
1. Pugay failed to exercise all the dil igence necessary to avoi d
every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be
committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of
the victim. Pugay is only guilty of HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE under 365 of RPC.
Penalty for Pugay: Indeterminate from 4 months of arresto mayor
as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision coreccional
maximum.
2. Samson is guilty of Murder (homicide) for setting the victim on fire
knowing that gasoline has been poured on the deceased. There is
an absence of intent to kill and that his act was just part of their
fun-making that evening.
Treachery - deliberate attack and employing means
to insure its execution removing any form of defense from the offended
party.

Article IV: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from what is intended.