SAN DIEGO, FEBRIE M.

JUNE 2O18

Topic: Rape
Case Title: People of the Philippines versus Jonathan Pal, et al
Date: June 18, 2018 GR No.: 223565

Doctrine: While appellant did not personally have sexual intercourse with the victim, the acts of
appellant and his co-accused clearly demonstrated a common design to have carnal knowledge of
the victim

Facts: Appellant Ron Aries Dagatan Cariat and his three co-accused was charged with the crime
of rape. Of the four accused, only appellant was arrested. Appellant claimed and denying that he
did not participated in the commission of the crime particularly where he is accused of holding the
victim and dragged her outside their house to a grassy area. He also denied that he pointed a knife
at the victim while his co-accused raped her.

Issue: Whether appellant was guilty of rape.

Ruling: The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant. While appellant did not personally
have sexual intercourse with the victim, the acts of appellant and his co-accused clearly
demonstrated a common design to have carnal knowledge of the victim. Unmistakably, appellant
concurred in the criminal design to rape the victim. Since there was conspiracy among all the
accused, the act of one was the act of all making them equally guilty of the crime of rape.

Topic: Murder aggravated by Treachery and evidence premeditation

Case Title: People of the Philippines versus Rodolfo Grabador, Jr. et al
Date: June 13, 2018 GR No.: 227504
Doctrine: The killing of a person that is attended by treachery and evident premeditation is murder.
The prosecution must prove all the elements of these qualifying circumstances. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected onslaught on an unsuspecting victim. This mode of attack
must have been deliberately adopted by the accused to diminish the risk from the victim's
retaliation. As for evident premeditation, the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection. Thus, there must be proof showing when and how the accused planned,
and prepared for the crime. It is imperative to prove that a sufficient amount of time had indeed
lapsed between the malefactor's determination and execution. Without these essential requisites,
one cannot haphazardly assume that evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense.

Facts: Appellant Alex Abierra with his co-accused was charged with murder. Appellant claimed
that at the date of the commission of the crime, he was residing in Bicol. Alternatively, he claims
that even assuming for the sake of argument that he indeed killed the victim, he avers that the
prosecution failed to prove that the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation.

Issue: Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: The Court affirmed the conviction of appellant based on the corroborated testimony of
the witness. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of all the essential
elements to warrant a conviction for murder. The deliberate stealth and swiftness of the attack
employed by Alex and his cohorts significantly diminished the risk of retaliation from the victim.
Indubitably, there is no denying that the collective acts of the accused and appellant reek of
treachery. However, the Prosecution failed to establish that the killing was attended by evidence
premeditation. Evident premeditation cannot be presumed in the absence of evidence showing
when and how the accused planned, and prepared for the crime, and that a sufficient amount of
time had lapsed between his determination and execution. It bears stressing that absent any clear
and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how
logical and probable, shall be deemed insufficient. The Court finds that the killing of Dennis was
not attended by evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to establish the fact that the plan to
kill Dennis was preceded by a deliberate planning, and that there was a lapse of ample and
sufficient time to allow Alex's conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so
desired, after meditation and reflection.

Topic: Robbery with Homicide

Case Title: People of the Philippines versus Benjamin Domasig
Date: June 13, 2018 GR No.: 217028

Doctrine: Prosecution must establish with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the
robbery, the latter being the perpetrator's main purpose and objective. It is not enough to suppose
that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not
sufficient.

Facts: Appellant was charged of the crime robbery with homicide. Accused-appellant argues that
Gloriana, the witness, made contradictory statements regarding the name of the perpetrator. On
one hand, he identified him as "Mando" while his sworn statement revealed that he gave the full
name of the accused-appellant; that Gloriana's attention was not focused on the stabbing incident
because he was answering the call of nature at that time; that Gloriana was around six to eight
meters away from the incident; and that Gloriana failed to describe the clothing or any other
striking feature of accused-appellant for purposes of identification.

Issue: Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for robbery with homicide has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

Ruling: The court modified the decision wherein it found appellant guilty of Homicide not
Robbery with Homicide. It was clear that the evidence presented to prove the robbery aspect of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, does not show that robbery had actually been
committed. In addition, assuming that robbery indeed took place, the prosecution must establish
with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the perpetrator's
main purpose and objective. It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the
homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient. Stated different in a
conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. What is crucial
for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly establish
the offender's intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when the
homicide is actually carried out. In this case, there was no showing of accused-appellant's intention,
determined by his acts prior to, contemporaneous with; and subsequent to the commission of the
crime, to commit robbery. No shred of evidence is on record that could support the conclusion that
accused-appellant's primary motive was to rob the victim and that he was able to accomplish
it. Mere speculation and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required in establishing the guilt
of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the
robbery, the killing of the victim would be classified either as a simple homicide or murder,
depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the crime of
robbery with homicide.

Topic: Direct Assault with Murder and Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder
Case Title: People of the Philippines versus Herminio Vibal, Jr. et al
Date: June 2O, 2O18 GR No.: 229678

Doctrine: 1. When the assault results in the killing of an agent or of a person in authority for that
matter, there arises the complex crime of Direct Assault with murder or homicide.

2. When the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly
weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of
timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide
depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code are present
Facts: The appellant and his co-accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two
counts of the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder and one count of Direct Assault with
Frustrated Murder. Accused-appellants principally contend that the CA gravely erred in its over-
reliance on the problematic identification provided by prosecution witness/private complainant
PO3 Almendras. They insist that PO3 Almendras could not have properly seen and identity the
assailants at the time of the shooting incident because after he was shot, he felt dizzy and lost
consciousness. Also, they brand Almendras' identification of them as the culprits to be dubious
considering that it was only made more than a year after the incident. Appellants argue that their
respective defenses of denial and alibi assume significance because the prosecution failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the identities of the authors of the crime.

Issue: Whether the accused were guilty of the offense charged against them.

Ruling: The courts a quo are correct in ruling that appellants are liable for the complex crime of
Direct Assault with Murder in Criminal Case Nos. 17646- B and 17647-B. Direct assault, a crime
against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by "any person or persons who, without
a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;" and second, by any person or persons
who, without a public uprising, “shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance.”

Appellants committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are: 1) that there must be
an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent;
2) the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such
performance; and 3) the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is,
that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person
in authority or an agent of a person in authority.

Here, Mayor Arcillas was a duly elected mayor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna and thus, was a person in
authority while PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almendras were agents of a person in authority. There is no
dispute that all of the three victims were in the performance of their official duties at the time of
the shooting incident. Mayor Arcillas was inside the Sta. Rosa City Hall officiating a mass
wedding, and thereafter, while he was walking along the hallway from the COA office to his office,
he was shot and killed. Victim PO2 Rivera and private complainant PO3 Almendras were likewise
performing their duty of protecting and guarding Mayor Arcillas at the time of the shooting
incident. Appellants' conduct of attacking the victims inside the Sta. Rosa City Hall clearly showed
their criminal intent to assault and injure the agents of the law.

When the assault results in the killing of an agent or of a person in authority for that matter, there
arises the complex crime of Direct Assault with murder or homicide. Here, treachery qualified the
killing of Mayor Arcillas and PO2 Rivera to murder. Treachery also attended the shooting of PO3
Almendras. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz.: (a) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed
by him. The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the
commission of the offense without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.

In the case at bench, the shooting was deliberate and without a warning, done in a swift and
unexpected manner. Mayor Arcillas, PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almendras were absolutely unaware of
the imminent deadly assaults, and were for that reason in no position to defend themselves or to
repel their assailants. Vibal and David, who were armed with guns, suddenly appeared in front and
at the back of Mayor Arcillas, PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almedras and shot the three victims. The
gunshots that came from the front of the victims were fired by Vibal, while those that came from
behind them were fired by David. Said manner of attack clearly revealed appellants' deliberate
design to thereby ensure the accomplishment of their purpose to kill or injure the three victims
without any possibility of their escape or of any retaliation from them.

The Court affirms the conclusion of the CA that the appellants should be held criminally liable for
the complex crime of Direct Assault with Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 17648-B. It is
well-settled that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly
weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of
timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide
depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code are present. But, if the wounds sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or
mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.