PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS.
RENATO @ BONG TORRECAMPO Y LEYTE AND RENE In the given case, Erlinda, witness, testified that Jovito was asleep prior to the arrival of appellants but witness did
TORRECAMPO Y LEYTE, APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 139297, February 23, 2004
PUNO, J.:
Doctrine:
Aggravating circumstances, whether qualifying or generic, must be alleged in the information before they can be
considered by the court.
Facts:
At about 9:00 A.M. on November 11, 1994, Jovito very much alive inside his room after an hour, appellant Renato
and his sister Nora pass by, followed shortly by appellant Rene. A commotion was heard inside the room of Jovito and after a
few minutes, appellants emerging from the room with Nora in tow. Cherry, another witness, heard a loud banging from the
room of Jovito so she went outside and saw Nora frantically pounding at the door, then Nora was pulled inside the room, after
thirty (30) minutes, weak Nora being assisted by appellant Renato coming out of the room and appellant Rene leaving the
room with his hands and clothes covered with blood. Inside the room, the police recovered the dead body of Jovito Gaspillo
inflicted with mortal wounds and separated head.
The Solicitor General submits that treachery should be appreciated against to the appellants as Jovito was asleep
when killed. He contends that while treachery was not alleged in the Information, it could be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the Solocitor General amenable.
Held:
No, the contention of the Solocitor General is not amenable.
Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
Sec. 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given
by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
1
not say that he was still sleeping when the attack commenced.
Hence, the aggravating circumstance on treachery cannot be used against the appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NERIO SUELA Y HEMBRA, EDGAR SUELA Y HEMBRA
AND EDGARDO BATOCAN, APPELLANTS.
G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Doctrine:
The aggravating circumstance of disguise was not alleged in the Information, it cannot now be appreciated to increase the
penalty to death, notwithstanding the fact that the new rule requiring such allegation was promulgated only after the crime
was committed and after the trial court had already rendered its decision.
Facts:
On July 26, 1995, between 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 midnight, private complainant Director Nilo L. Rosas was at the
master’s bedroom. He was watching television thereat, together with his adopted son, Norman Rosas, and his former co-
teacher and good friend, Geronimo ‘Gerry’ Gabilo, who at that time was engaged in the real estate business. Suddenly, three
persons sporting ski masks, bonnets and gloves, brandishing handguns and a knife, barged into the room. The three
malefactors robbed money and valuable things and killed Gabildo by shooting the latter by a gun.
After almost five (5) months of no leads towards solving the case, on January 15, 1996, Araceli Tubaga, Director
Rosas’ executive secretary at his DECS office at Misamis Street, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, received a call from a male
person who requested to speak with Director Rosas. When Tubaga requested to get his message as the director could not go
to the phone, he told her to relay to Rosas that he has information as to the identity and whereabouts of those responsible for
the death of his friend, Gabilo. The caller wanted to exchange his information with money.
The caller on the phone was arrested by the police. This person was later identified as appellant Edgar Suela. While
on board the vehicle on their way to the police station, in the presence of appellant Edgar Suela, Capt. Casanova, and the other
policemen, SPO3 Patriarca opened the envelope which Tubaga had earlier received from appellant Edgar Suela. It contained
a handwritten note disclosing the name of the mastermind which was Nerio Suela, who was a brother of Edgar and the former
driver of Director Rosas.
Thereafter, Nerio Suelas was arrested and he mentioned appellant Edgardo Batocan, their townmate, as a participant
in the crime. The operatives were able to recover the gold-plated Citizen watch of Rosas from Batocan’s girlfriend at Barangay
San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. The brand-new Honda motorcycle registered in appellant Batocan’s name was shipped from Leyte
to Quezon City as Batocan had admitted that he had bought it sometime in July 1995 with his share from the loot of the
robbery. While in police custody, appellant Batocan also indicated his desire to give an extra-judicial confession.
 Thus, on March 31, 1996, about 3:30 P.M., he was brought by SPO2 Reynato Resurreccion to the same IBP office
and gave his confession in the presence and with the assistant of Atty. Flormind Rous.
Issue:
Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance at the given case.
Held:
No, there is no aggravating circumstance.
The current Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
Information. Thus, Section 9 of new Rule 110 states:
“Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
In the present case, the aggravating circumstance of disguise which was appreciated by the court a quo was not alleged in the
Informations against appellants. Following the above-cited new rule and current jurisprudence, we cannot appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of disguise against appellants. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide carries the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. There being no appreciable aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty to be imposed
is reclusion perpetua.
Hence, the court AFFIRM the judgment insofar as it refers to Criminal Case but REDUCE the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
The award of civil indemnities is also AFFIRMED. Edgar Suela y Hembra is ACQUITTED.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO GUNGAB, DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.
G. R. No. 45498, September 24, 1937
VILLA-REAL, J.:
Facts:
The accused and the deceased, without having had any courtship between them, had been married canonically by agreement
of their respective elders eight months before the commission of the crime; that prior to the incident, the accused had caught
his wife in sexual intercourse with another man, the second act having taken place two days prior to said incident; that when
he caught her for the first time, he threatened to hack her with a bolo if she should again be unfaithful and she promised never
to do it again; that, notwithstanding her promise, his wife again had illicit intercourse with the same man at a later date; that
on the day of the crime, November 9, 1936, he requested his wife to cook rice for him; that before returning home at about
4.00 o'clock in the afternoon of said day, he drank one-half frasco full of wine without having taken any solid food, and when
2
he arrived at his house at that time, he did not find his wife around; that he suspected that she had gone to the house of her
paramour; that he waited for her and she arrived two hours later; that as he repeatedly asked her where she had come from and
she refused to answer, he lost his temper and, without knowing what he was doing, he hacked his wife with his bolo; that he
was not in the habit of drinking wine; that he did not know how to read or write and surrendered to the authorities immediately
after he had committed the crime.
The court a quo, together with the prosecuting attorney, took into consideration the presence of the aggravating circumstances
of treachery and evident premeditation merely because the accused had pleaded guilty of the crime of parricide with which he
is charged in the information.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a treachery.
Held:
No, after the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are eliminated, only the mitigating
circumstances of intoxication, which is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, lack of instruction,
voluntary surrender to the agents of the authorities, and voluntary confession before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution, remain to be taken into consideration. There being four mitigating circumstances present with
no aggravating circumstance to offset them, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death prescribed in article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code for a person who kills his spouse, is clearly excessive. Article 63 of said Code, which regulates the application of
indivisible penalties, as reclusion perpetua and death, is silent, with respect to the case where there were two or more
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance was present, unlike article 64 of the same Code regulating the
application of penalties composed of three periods, rule 5 of which provides that when there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
Wherefore, modified only in the sense of eliminating the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation from the appealed judgment.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EUGENIO GALAPIA Y BACUS, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
G.R. No. L-39303-05, August 01, 1978
Facts:
In the early evening of February 11, 1974, the husband feels a need for sexual fulfilment, went to the house of his mother-in-
law in order to sleep with his wife. But, he was denied entry to the house. Not one to be easily frustrated, the husband left and
waited until all the occupants of the house were asleep and then entered the house by breaking the glass blades or jalousies of
a window. Once inside, he went to the bed shared by his wife and son. His wife, however, repulsed his advances and threatened
to stab him with a kitchen knife. After a brief scuffle, the husband was able to wrest the knife from his wife. The commotion,
however, attracted the attention of the mother-in- law who came to the aid of her daughter with a bolo in hand. The husband
also succeeded in wrenching the bolo from her, and with it, attacked his mother-in-law, his wife, and two young nephews of
his wife Francisco Bulong and Hermenegildo Bulong, who were then sleeping in the sala of the house. The husband then left
the house, taking his small son along with him and brought the boy to the house of his parents. On the way, he threw the bolo
into the sea, but kept the kitchen knife. He then proceeded to the house of the barrio captain in order to surrender. The barrio
captain, however, was sick. So, he went to the poblacion of Bacarra and surrendered to a policeman on duty at the town hall.
The following day, he signed an extra-judicial confession before the investigating officers, admitting the killing of his wife,
his mother-in-law, and the wife's nephew, Francisco Balong.
Issues:
1. Whether or not there was evident premeditation in the commission of the crime..
2. Whether or not there was abuse of superior strength in the commission of the crime..
3. Whether or not there was aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling in the commission of the crime.
4. Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present dwelling in the commission of the crime.
Held:
1. We agree with this observation because the purpose of the accused in going to the house of his mother-in-law was
to sleep with his wife, not to kill her.
2. We also agree with the parties that abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case for the reason that
the said circumstance is inherent in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted
that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.
1.
3. Nocturnity cannot also be appreciated, although the crime was committed at night, because nighttime was not
specially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure
its consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.
4. But the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present since the crime was committed in the house occupied by
his estranged wife, other than the conjugal home. Unlawful entry is also present since the accused admittedly
destroyed the glass blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry into the house.
3
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE
YTURRIAGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
G.R. No. L-2816, May 31, 1950
Facts:
It appears that the appellant was municipal mayor of Bobon, province of Samar. On August 3, 1947, at about k
o'clock in the afternoon, accompanied by a policeman, he raided a house where a game of monte was being or was
to be played. Upon seeing the accused, the gamblers or would be gamblers fled from the house and were not arrested,
except one whom the defendant caught up with and grabbed. Mien he emerged from the gambling house, the accused
met Jose Balite walking down the street with a 12-year old daughter. The evidence disagrees about what occurred,
if any, between the defendant and Balite immediately before the killing; but it is admitted that the defendant shot
and killed Balite with a pistol or revolver treacherously, as treachery is defined in the Revised Penal Code. It also
appears that Balite had been a rival candidate for mayor and was a political enemy of the accused.
Arraigned, the accused pleaded guilty except as to the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
in finding the concurrence of evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance, the court relied solely
on the testimony of witnesses that the defendant in a speech In February, 1947, attacked Jose Ballte saying, "You
people In San Antonio, you are wild and savages, and I understand you are the supporters of Jose Balite. But you
must understand that X am now the one in power, and do not rely on Jose Balite because he is no longer the one in
power. This coming election in 1947, bear in mind, I am going to kill him because I have also a man whom I
confided." and taking advantage of his position as municipal mayor charged in the information. At the same time,
he invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty, drunkenness and voluntary surrender.
Issues:
1. Whether or not there was aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation.
2. Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his position.
Held:
The court does not think that the accused called his audience wild and savages unless he was out of his mind; and if
the witnesses lied in this respect, there is ground to believe that they may also have lied or exaggerated with reference
to other parts of the defendant's speech.
However the case may be, the remarks attributed to the accused, granting he was correctly quoted, are utterly
insufficient to warrant the finding of evident premeditation. It is more reasonable to believe that the accused made
those remarks, if he made them, in a fit of anger without meaning what he said. It is worth noting that the defendant
is impulsive and hot tempered, as the record abundantly indicates.
 2. The allegation that the defendant took advantage of his office is also unwarranted by the proof. In killing the was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of
deceased, the appellant did not avail himself of "the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which go with his position attack employed by him.[16] The latter condition is immediately negated by the fact that the meeting between the appellant and
as a means of securing the execution of the crime." In other words, his being mayor did not in any way facilitate the Tapales was by chance.
murder. He could have committed the crime in the same form or manner and with the same ease if he had been a
plain citizen. Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack or from the fact that the victim was stabbed with
his back towards the appellant.
The appealed judgment is modified so that the appellant will be sentenced to eight years and one day of prision
mayor, as minimum, and 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion perpetua. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED by convicting the appellant Gregorio Magallanes of the
crime of homicide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO MAGALLANES, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANCIO FLORES, DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 114265, July 08, 1997
G. R. No. 6427, March 23, 1911
Facts:
Facts:
On September 29, 1991, at around three o’clock in the afternoon, the appellant, GREGORIO MAGALLANES, who was a
“mananari” or gaffer of fighting cocks, trekked the road to the cockpit of Poblacion Sagbayan, Bohol. The appellant was in That on or about the 13th day of December, 1909, in the municipality of Cebu, in this province and judicial district, said
the company of several other cockfighting afficionados, among whom were Romualdo Cempron and Danilo Salpucial. While Constancio Flores, being a member of the municipal police, detailed in the department of secret service, maliciously and
on their way, they passed by Virgilio Tapales who was drinking in the store of Umping Amores which was located on the criminally demanded and obtained from the Chinaman Chan Cam the sum of P25, as a consideration for the said
elevated side of the road. Tapales hailed Cempron and invited him for a drink but the latter courteously refused as he was Constancio Flores abstaining, as he did abstain, from complaining against and arresting the said Chan Cam for a violation of
going to the cockpit. Tapales approached Cempron and conversed with him briefly. For some unknown reason, Tapales then Act No. 1761; that the accused, in the performance of the duties of his office as such policeman, should have complained
directed his attention to the appellant who was walking a few steps behind Cempron. Tapales held the appellant by his shirt, against and arrested the said Chan Cam.
slapped him and strangled his neck. But seeing a knife tucked in Tapales’ waist, the appellant pulled out the knife and slashed
at Tapales to loosen his grip. The appellant succeeded in wounding the face and neck of Tapales who let go of the appellant Issue:
and fled for his life. Insatiated, the appellant pursued Tapales and when the latter fell, the appellant stabbed him several more
times before uttering the following words: “you are already dead in that case”.[1] With that, the appellant stood up and rode on Whether or not there is taking of abuse of authority.
the motorcycle being driven by Danilo Salpucial. Later, the appellant surrendered to the police authorities of the town of
Inabanga, Bohol.
Held:

Issue:
In the case at bar it clearly appears from the evidence that the Chinaman from whom the money was extorted had not
committed the crime for the commission of which the appellant threatened to arrest him and that he had been guilty of no
Whether or not there was a treachery. illegal act whatever. It is equally unquestioned that the accused knew that fact.

Held: It appearing in this case that the Chinaman Chan Cam was not guilty of any crime at the time of his arrest, and that the appellant
in this case knew that fact, the necessary inference is "that the arrest was made for the purpose of extorting this money from
No, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms the complaining witness."
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.”[15] Thus, for treachery or alevosia to be appreciated as a qualifying Upon these facts this court held the defendant guilty of the crime of robbery and not estafa.
circumstance, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of two (2) conditions: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim
4
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, BACOLOD CITY, AND P/COL. NICOLAS M.
TORRES, P/INSP. ADONIS C. ABETO, PO MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, PO JOSE PAHAYUPAN, PO
VICENTE CANUDAY, JR., JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, CHARLES DUMANCAS, DOMINADOR
GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY, JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO R. FERNANDEZ, EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA,
TEODY DELGADO, CESAR PECHA, AND EDGAR HILADO, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. Nos. 118013-14, October 11, 1995
Facts:
On 13 January 1994, two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder were filed with the RTC of Bacolod City against
fourteen persons, five of whom are members of the PNP, namely, P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres, P/Insp. Adonis C. Abeto, Police
Officers Mario Lamis, Jose Pahayupan, and Vicente Canuday, Jr.; the other nine are civilians.
That during the period beginning in the late afternoon of August 6, 1992 and ending the late evening of the following day in
Sitio Pedrosa, Barangay Alijis, Bacolod City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and concurring in a common criminal intent and execution thereof with one another, save
for the accessories for the purpose of extracting or extorting the sum of P353, 000.00, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously to wit:
Acting upon the inducement of spouses Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas and Charles Dumancas, under the direction cooperation
and undue influence, exerted by P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres, taking advantage of his position as Station Commander of the
Philippine National Police, Bacolod City Station, with the direct participation and cooperation of Police Inspector Adonis C.
Abeto, other police officers Vicente Canuday, Jr., Jose Pahayupan, Mario Lamis, civilian (police) agents Rolando R.
Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Jaime Gargallano, also taking advantage of their respective positions, and
Dominador Geroche, concurring and affirming in the said criminal design, with the use of motor vehicle abduct, kidnap and
detain one RUFINO GARGAR, JR. (Criminal Case No. 94-15562 and DANILO LUMANGYAO, shortly thereafter at around
11:00 o'clock in the evening of August 7, 1992, failing in their aforesaid common purpose to extort money and in furtherance
of said conspiracy, with evident premeditation and treachery nocturnity and the use of motor vehicle, did then and there shot
and kill the said victims, while being handcuffed and blindfolded; that accused Cesar Pecha and Edgar Hilado, with knowledge
that the said Gargar [and Lumangyao, were victims] of violence, did then and there secretly bury the corpses in a makeshift
shallow grave for the purpose of concealing the crime of murder in order to prevent its discovery for a fee of P500.00 each;
aforesaid act or acts has caused damage and prejudice to the heirs of said victims.
Each of the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Later, they filed their respective motions for bail. At the hearings
thereof, the prosecution presented state witness Moises Grandeza, the alleged lone eyewitness and co-conspirator in the
commission of the complex crimes.
Relying on its evidence and on the Montejo case, the petitioner submits that the crimes charged in the subject cases were
connected with public office because the accused PNP officers, together with the civilian agents, arrested the two swindling
suspects in the course of the performance of their duty and not out of personal motive.
5
Issue:
Whether or not that the crime committed has connection
Held:
We held that the offense charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused because it was perpetrated while they
were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions and would not have been committed had they
not held their office; besides, the accused had no personal motive in committing the crime; thus, there was an intimate
connection between the offense and the office of the accused.
The allegation of "taking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage of their respective positions" incorporated in the
information is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed in relation to public office." In
Montilla vs. Hilario,[24] such an allegation was considered merely as an allegation of an aggravating circumstance, [25] and not
as one that qualifies the crime as having been committed in relation to public office. It says:
But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its
materiality arises, not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but from
the manner of the commission of the crime.
MANUEL MONTILLA, AS PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS SUR, AND FAUSTINO S. TOBIA,
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ZOILO HILAMO, AS DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
ILOCOS SUR, AND HON. FLORO CRISOLOGO, RESPONDENTS.
G. R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951
Facts:
This case comes before us on a writ of certiorari to the Court of. First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and involves the consideration
of the scope of the aforequoted constitutional provision. The provincial fiscal and the private counsel for the complainants
seek to have set aside an order of Judge Zoilo Hilario of that court overruling their objection to Congressman Floro Crisologo's
intervention as defense counsel for murder with (and) frustrated murder" against the municipal mayor and three members of
the police force of Santa Catalina, Ilocos Sur.
The information charges that the defendants, "taking advantage of their respective public positions, conspiring together * * *,
did then and there * * * assault, attack and shoot with their firearms" several persons "with the intent to kill" and did kill one
Claudio Ragasa and inflict physical injuries on three others.
Issue:
Whether or not there was taking advantage of the accused by their public positions.
Held:
From the allegations of the information it does not 'appear that the official positions of the accused were connected with the
offenses charged. In fact, the attorneys for the prosecution stated that the motives for the crimes were "personal with political
character." It does not even appear, nor is there assertion, that the crimes were committed by the defendants in line of duty or
in the performance of their official functions.
Public office is not of the essense of murder. The taking of human life is either murder or homicide whether done by a private
citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same except when the perpetrator, being a public functionary, took advantage
of his office, as alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased.
But the use or abu.se of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its
materiality arises, not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but from
the manner of the commission of the crime
US vs. Adiao
Facts:
The defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstracted a leather belt valued at P0.80, from the baggage of a Japanese
named T. Murakami, and secreted the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees.
Issue:
Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance?
Held:
There exists the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken by the offender of his public position. Wherefore, in view
of the provisions of articles 517 and 518, No. 5, of the Penal Code, and there being present one aggravating circumstance
compensated by no mitigating circumstance, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree.
6
US vs. Pabalan (G.R. No. 13020, December 20, 1917)
FACTS:
In Calamba, Laguna, there was a superstitious cult called Mina or Baycot. According to the witnesses, the members
of this association excavates the riverbanks and asks the spirits where the money can be found; a person who in connivance
would be hidden near the place gives the answer, and then whoever is the victim leaves money there expecting it to be
exchanged for gold. A person by the name of Gabriel Bautista was supposed to know where the money of this society was
secreted. By order of Joaquin Pabalan, sergeant of police, his house was searched. He was also conducted to the municipal
building and maltreated to make him confess as to the whereabouts of the money. Bautista thus describes what happened to
him: "They made me stand on a box and hanged me up, having my two hands one over the other on a piece of bamboo, and
then they took away the box which served as a place to stand on and left me hanging in that position." Once suspended,
Bautista was asked where the money by Adriano to which Bautista answered that he did not know. Adriano Herrero may also
have been subjected to the same treatment, but he was not called upon to testify.
ISSUE:
WON Sergeant Pabalan is liable for maltreatment of Bautista.
WON Pabalan taking advantage of his official position which the circumstances aggravates his criminal liability.
HELD:
Yes, the two other accused were acquitted by the trial judge. But such acquittal of policemen, apparently merely
acting under the orders of their chief, is not sufficient to exculpate the person directly responsible for the crime. All the
evidence converges on the one fact that the appellant ordered the torture of an apparently innocent person. This court went far
in an effort to protect police officers who act in good faith in a legitimate effort to protect society. The opposite side of the
shield is just as strongly condemnatory of barbarous action by police officers. The policeman who, taking advantage of his
public position, maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely
not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of
his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police.
Yes, the facts before us constitute the crime of coercion by induction. Joaquin Pabalan, without authority of law,
by means of violence compelled Gabriel Bautista to do something against his will. (Art. 497, Penal Code.) Since advantage
was taken by the offender of his public position as sergeant of police, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree.
US vs. Pantoja (G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968)
FACTS:
Late in the night of June 28, 1957, in the Barrio of Malinao, Atimonan, Quezon, a group of seven young men
serenaded the house, where Estelita Erotes lived. Invited to come up, the young men accepted the invitation. When Wenceslao
Hernandez was seated beside Estelita, an uninvited Philippine Army Sergeant, Getulio Pantoja, in T-Shirt, came up and asked
Hernandez to allow him to sit beside Estelita, but Hernandez refused the request. The time was about 1:30 A.M., June
29. Pantoja said nothing and showed no sign of anger. However, he immediately left and went to his camp about half a
kilometer distant, put on his fatigue uniform, got a rifle, went back to the house and stationed himself on the stairway. The
time was about 2:00 A.M. At this time, the serenaders left the house to go to and serenade another house in the Northern part
of the Barrio. Pantoja followed the group. When the serenaders had walked a distance of about thirty meters with Pantoja
following them at a distance of about five meters, Pantoja suddenly shouted "Ano yan? Ano yan?". Turning their heads back
they saw Pantoja raise the garand rifle and aim at them. Before any of them could run away, Pantoja fired two shots in rapid
succession. The first shot hit Angel Marasigan who instantly fell on his back. The second shot hit Wenceslao Hernandez who
fell down. The other serenaders scampered away for safety. Pantoja, who had walked nearer, then fired one more shot at the
prostrate body of Marasigan and four more shots at the prostrate body of Hernandez. The accused, testifying in his own
defense, admitted that the shots he fired from the garand rifle killed Marasigan and Hernandez. The autopsy report attributed
the deaths to internal hemorrhage and the destruction of vital organs.
ISSUE:
WON there was an aggravating criminal liability on the part of Pantoja because of his alleged taking advantage of
his official position.
HELD:
Appellant contends that the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of public position and ignominy were not
present. The contention is meritorious. There is nothing to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in
the Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the
time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes. With regard to ignominy
the mere fact that the appellant fired one more shot at the prostrate body of Marasigan and four more shots at the prostrate
body of Hernandez is not sufficient to show the existence of said aggravating circumstance.
Appellant contends that he should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The contention
is tenable. The evidence shows that immediately after the commission of the murders, the appellant voluntarily surrendered
to his detachment camp commander to whom he also surrendered the garand rifle, and that he was ordered confined in the
stockade.
People vs. Amion but its GR No appeared that it was the case of People vs. Sales which happened to be a parricide case
that is not connected to the topic. However, as I searched on the title of the case, it happened to be the basis of what is
stated in the magic book.
People vs. Amion (G.R. No. 140511, March 01, 2001)
FACTS:
On January 24, 1994, Chief Inspector Edmundo Sanicas was at his house in Mansilingan, Bacolod City. As of that
date, CI Sanicas has no specific assignment as he had just been relieved of his duty as Chief of Police of the town of E. B.
Magalona. CI Sanicas is 51 years of age, married and has been a policeman for nearly thirty (30) years.
CI Sanicas told the Court that at about 1:00 P.M. of that day, January 24, 1994, two (2) policemen from Escalante
town came to see him to deliver the message of the Chief of Police of that town for a coordination with him concerning his
projected trip to Manila regarding a police training program. These two (2) policemen in their police uniform, came on board
an Escalante patrol car together with a civilian companion. He came to know these policemen later as PO3 Victor Vaflor and
PO3 Richard Dejoras both of the Escalante Police Station. After they had a talk inside his house, CI Sanicas conducted the
two Escalante policemen as they left his house. As he emerged from the steel gate following the two (2) policemen, he saw
SP02 Baltazar Amion, only about a meter away from PO3 Vaflor. SPO2 Amion started shooting at PO3 Vaflor with an armalite
rifle as the latter was about to open the door of the Escalante police car. PO3 Vaflor fell. CI Sanicas attempted to take away
the armalite rifle but SPO2 Amion refused to surrender it. SPO2 Amion circled around the Escalante patrol car followed by
CI Sanicas. Upon reaching the fallen PO2 Vaflor, Amion again fired shots at him. For the second time, CI Sanicas attempted
to disarm the accused but the latter refused to surrender the armalite rifle. For the second time, the accused circled the Escalante
police car followed by CI Sanicas. CI Sanicas could not distinctly recall whether shots were fired when the accused approached
his victim for the second time. PO3 Vaflor was loaded on the Precinct 7 police car upon instruction of CI Sanicas to be brought
to the hospital. On the way, the police car driven by the accused passed by Precinct 7 and both the accused and CI Sanicas
disembarked. It was here where the accused finally surrendered his armalite rifle to CI Sanicas. When the victim eventually
reached the Bacolod Sanitarium Hospital, he was declared Dead on Arrival (DOA)."[4]
The trial court concluded that the testimonies of Sanicas and Dejoras positively show that the accused suddenly,
deliberately and without warning, shot to death PO3 Victor Vaflor in the afternoon of January 24, 1994 at Brgy. Mansilingan,
Bacolod City. The firearm used in the killing was an armalite rifle with Serial No. RP-186739 which was issued to him in his
official capacity as a member of the Bacolod City Police Office. The trial court found that the motive for the killing is revenge
as the victim is one of those charged with murder for the death of Amion's uncle many years ago. The killing was attended by
treachery as the accused was already waiting by the gate when victim emerged and was fired upon with an M16 armalite rifle
7
and was thus absolutely unprepared for the attack and had no chance to defend himself or to escape.
ISSUE:
WON there was an aggravating circumstance in the case at bar.
HELD:
With respect to the attendant circumstances, we agree with the Solicitor General that the use of a motor vehicle
cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance, as the police vehicle used to reach the Sanicas residence was not used
directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act[11]. Although the accused-appellant used a patrol car to commute from
Escalante to the Sanicas residence, there is no showing that the use of that vehicle facilitated the act of shooting itself.
Neither may the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men be appreciated in this case. The trial court found that
during the shooting, an armed companion was on board the patrol car pointing his rifle in the direction of Dejoras. In the first
place, this aggravating circumstance contemplates more than one armed man, as the use of the plural form easily suggests. In
the second place, the requisites of this aggravating circumstance are: 1) that armed men or persons took part in the commission
of the crime, directly or indirectly, and 2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed. Neither circumstance was proven present; it is clear from the evidence that the accused-appellant carried out the
killing all by himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance.
We also do not agree that the fact that accused-appellant used his service firearm in shooting Vaflor should be
considered as an aggravating circumstance as he took advantage of his public position. [12] There is authority to the effect that
for public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the public official must use his influence, prestige and
ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose:
"If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public
position. In one case where the accused was a sergeant of the Philippine Army, this Court held that the mere fact that he was
in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position. In another
case where the accused, a Constabulary soldier used a Garand rifle in the provincial jail armory in killing a policeman, the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not appreciated because accused could have secured a
rifle from other sources. And in the murder by a public officer, it was ruled that firearms, however and whenever obtained,
are not an ingredient of murder or homicide. The crime could have been committed by defendants in the same or like manner
and with the same ease if they had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons. In the case at bar, although the
victim was killed with appellant's armalite rifle which was issued to him, there was nothing to show that appellant took
advantage of his position. In the absence of proof that advantage was taken by appellant, the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of position could not be properly appreciated against him."
People vs. Cabiling (G.R. No. 3070, February 11, 1907)
FACTS:
The defendant, Juan Cabiling, was a student of the Government school at Ormoc, and the deceased was the principal
of said school. On the morning of November 22, 1905, a normal school was opened at Ormoc for the training of teachers from
the various towns on the western coast of Leyte. Mr. Allen was authorized to select from the students those who were to be
promoted to said school. The defendant was one of those who desired to attend said school, and on the morning in question as
soon as the class under the direction of Mrs. Allen assembled the defendant, who was one of the students of said class, inquired
of Mrs. Allen if he was not going to be in said normal class, and upon being answered 'no' he stated that he was not satisfied.
Mrs. Allen went on with the recitation with which she was then engaged, and while she was thus engaged the defendant kept
talking in a very rude manner, grumbled, and refused to study, wherefore she told him two or three times to stop because she
must hear the recitation; a little later, as soon as the recitation in class four was over, and Mrs. Allen desired to turn back to
part second of the book for review, because they had no other books, the defendant told her that grammars must be available
and that he was not satisfied, as there arrived a supply of same, and upon being answered that the grammars were for the
normal school teachers, the defendant got up and said to Mrs. Allen that she had told a lie by telling him that he could go into
the normal school and now he was held back in the lower grade. In view of this behavior of the defendant, Mrs. Allen said
that she would go to talk with Mr. Allen and have him settle the matter. Mrs. Allen left the room in the direction of the library,
where Mr. Allen was, and told him that it would be better to send the defendant home and tell him to come back at 2 p. m.
The deceased gave his assent and followed Mrs. Allen into the room, where the defendant was, and coming to the place where
the latter sat, Mr. Allen said to him: 'What is the matter with you this morning, Juan? If you are not satisfied here you may go
away.' The defendant upon hearing these words, rushed upon the deceased and stabbed him in the stomach; the deceased
pushed him back a distance of about 4 feet, and then the defendant gave deceased a second blow in the same place, whereupon
the deceased caught the defendant by the right hand wherein he had the knife, and by the neck. At this stage of the struggle
the lieutenant of the municipal police arrived and pointing his revolver at the defendant separated them and took the knife
away from defendant." Her evidence is corroborated by that of Wilbur Chamberlain, another eyewitness, and by that of James
F. Godward, who witnessed the termination of the struggle.
ISSUE:
Was there an aggravating circumstances on the ground with regards to insult to public authorities in the case at bar
HELD:
As to the aggravating circumstance, we agree with the Attorney-General that that of known premeditation was not
proven, and that circumstance 20 of article 10 was proven. That provision of article 10 is as follows:
"When the act is committed with insult or in disregard for the respect which may be due the aggrieved party on
account of his rank, age, or sex, or when it is committed in his dwelling, if he has not given provocation."
It is applicable to this case because the person attacked was the teacher and the person attacking was the pupil.
There being one aggravating circumstance and no extenuating circumstance, the penalty must according to the law,
be imposed in the maximum degree and we fix it at fourteen years eight months and one day of imprisonment (cadena
temporal).
PROVISION OF THE LAW:
3. That the act be committed with insult of in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
The foregoing provision provides the following aggravating circumstances, to wit:
a. Insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex
b. The crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party.
People vs. Nismal (G.R. No. 51257, June 25, 1982)
FACTS:
"That on or about the 15th day of December 1975, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being
then security guard assigned with the Republic Bank, UP Compound, Diliman, this City, at night time purposely sought to
facilitate the commission of the crime, did, then and there, by means of violence and intimidation against person of one JOSE
TEEHANKEE, JR., Manager-Cashier of the said Republic Bank, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain,
take, rob and carry away the amount of P65.000.00 in paper bills, belonging to the Republic Bank and the said accused to
further facilitate the commission of the crime and in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank and
age with intent to kill qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
person of said JOSE TEEHANKEE, JR., by then and there stabbing the latter several times on the different parts of his body,
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the
8
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said TEEHANKEE, JR., in such amount as maybe awarded under the provisions of
existing laws.
ISSUE:
Was there an aggravating liability?
HELD:
Accordingly, We hold that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide as alleged in the
information. Being the security guard of the bank, Mr. Teehankee was his superior. Indeed, it was his duty precisely to defend
Mr. Teehankee from any aggressor. But in disregard of the respect he owed Mr. Teehankee, on account of his superior rank
to him, he assaulted him. Such disregard of respect is an aggravating circumstance.
Mr. Teehankee reposed confidence in him; he abused it. He attacked the 60-year old Mr. Teehankee with obvious
ungratefulness. That is another aggravating circumstance.
We also find that accused very well planned to await until nighttime, past 5:30 o'clock in December when the nights
are long, which he knew was the time when Mr. Teehankee would be alone. If such circumstances may not strictly be
considered as constitutive of nocturnidad, to facilitate the commission of the crimes he was bent on committing, the evidence
We have reviewed sufficiently establish evident premeditation, one more aggravating circumstance.
Against the foregoing aggravating circumstances, the only mitigating circumstance that can be set off is his plea of
guilty. In consequence it is inevitable that he must suffer the capital punishment of death, as held by the trial court.
DWELLING aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.
People vs. Galapia (G.R. No. L-39303-05, August 01, 1978)
FACTS:
The record shows that the accused Eugenio Galapia y Bacus and Leonida Agudelo were married on August 8,1971
before Mayor Leonardo A. Velasco of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.[1] After their marriage, the spouses lived with Bonifacia Castro
Agudelo, the mother of Leonida, in Barrio Libong, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. Living with his mother-in-law became extremely
difficult so that sometime in May, 1973,[2] the husband left the house to live with his own parents, about a kilometer away.
His wife and son, however, were left behind.
In the early evening of February 11, 1974, the husband, feeling a need for sexual fulfillment, went to the house of
his mother-in-law in order to sleep with his wife. But, he was denied entry to the house. Not one to be easily frustrated, the
husband left and waited until all the occupants of the house were asleep and then entered the house by breaking the glass
blades or jalousies of a window. Once inside, he went to the bed shared by his wife and son. His wife, however, repulsed his
advances and threatened to stab him with a kitchen knife. After a brief scuffle, the husband was able to wrest the knife from
his wife. The commotion, however, attracted the attention of the mother-in- law who came to the aid of her daughter with a
bolo in hand. The husband also succeeded in wrenching the bolo from her, and with it, attacked his mother-in-law, his wife,
and two young nephews of his wife Francisco Bulong and Hermenegildo Bulong, who were then sleeping in the sala of the
house. The husband then left the house, taking his small son along with him and brought the boy to the house of his parents.
On the way, he threw the bolo into the sea, but kept the kitchen knife. He then proceeded to the house of the barrio captain in
order to surrender. The barrio captain, however, was sick. So, he went to the poblacion of Bacarra and surrendered to a
policeman on duty at the town hall. The following day, he signed an extra-judicial confession before the investigating officers,
admitting the killing of his wife, his mother-in-law, and the wife's nephew, Francisco Balong.[3]
ISSUE:
Was there an aggravating liability as to dwelling?
HELD:
A prosecution for parricide, the victim being the wife of the assailant. The information alleges that the offense was
committed with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength and accompanied by the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and dwelling.
The parties are agreed that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation has not been established by the
testimony of prosecution witness Hermenigildo Bulong, nor by the extra-judicial confession of the accused. We agree with
this observation because the purpose of the accused in going to the house of his mother-in-law was to sleep with his wife, not
to kill her.
We also agree with the parties that abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case for the reason that
the said circumstance is inherent in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the
husband is physically stronger than the wife.
Nocturnity cannot also be appreciated, although the crime was committed at night, because nighttime was not
specially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure its
consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.
But the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present since the crime was committed in the house occupied by
his estranged wife, other than the conjugal home. Unlawful entry is also present since the accused admittedly destroyed the
glass blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry into the house.[10]
It results that two aggravating circumstances - dwelling and unlawful entry - attended the commission of the crime.
These circumstances, however, are offset by two mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. The
proper penalty to be imposed is, therefore, reclusion perpetua.
The crime committed is murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and attended by the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry which are, in turn, offset by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and the plea of guilty. The penalty to be imposed upon the accused should, therefore, be reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Badilla (G.R. No. L-69317, September 11, 1985)
FACTS:
On or about the 18th day of July, 1984, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Danilo Badilla with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, and beat Nestora Horohoro with a wooden pole, and with
the use of a stainless knife, a deadly weapon, stab the latter on the vital parts of her body thereby inflicting upon her various
mortal wounds which directly caused the death of said Nestora Horohoro, and thereafter, the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly take and carry away one (1) rota-air electric fan and one (1) Sanyo Dynamic
radio cassette recorder, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Nestora Horohoro in an amount to be proved during
the trial.
The prosecution’s witnesses are the niece of Nestora who is Ruth Torrefranca, 10 years old, Grade V student, a
neighbor of Praxedes Quidang, the owner of the house where the victim lives, named Erica Requina, a business man named
Joseph Lim to whom the accused want to sell the things he stoled, a patrolman named Teofano Ordidor and Dr. Marcial
Escobia, the physician who examined the victim. All of them testified against the accused.
ISSUE:
WON there was an aggravating liability on the part of the accused.
9
HELD:
The appellant alleges that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and obvious ungratefulness were
not supported by evidence.
Treachery is presents in this case because the appellant employed measures intended to ensure the commission of
the offense without risk to him arising from the defense his victim might make. (People v. Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580,
February 15, 1990)
The numerous stab wounds, some of which were inflicted at the back of the victim, shows that the appellant’s attack
was sudden and brutal. The suddenness of the attack deprived the victim, who was a woman, unarmed, and alone, the
opportunity to run or fight back. The appellant, a strong young man, did not even suffer any injuries except for the small
wound on his finger inflicted by a bite. Obviously, apart from using her teeth, the victim could not put up any defense.
Obvious ungratefulness cannot be appreciated as there is no evidence as to what generosities and the extent thereof
were received by the appellant from the victim.
Dwelling is also considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
The appellant cites a number of cases decided in the 1940’s and 50’s ruling that for the circumstance of dwelling to
be established, the house in which the offense is committed must belong to the victim or at least be her permanent dwelling.
Dwelling, then, may mean temporary dwelling. Applying the above ruling, we agree with the trial court that
dwelling is an aggravating circumstance though the victim was not the owner of the house where the crime was committed.
She was living in that house with her niece. The owner was in Manila.
People vs Balansi (G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990)
FACTS:
The accused-appellant was then the Barangay Captain of Balinciagao Norte, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao, and a member
of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), while the victim was the Provincial Development Officer of Kalinga-Apayao.
The incident took place during a wedding celebration at Balinciagao Sur, Pasil, at or about 5:30 or 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
The prosecution presented eight witnesses. The defense placed two on the stand.
It appears that the victim, a nephew of the appellant, was then sleeping at the house of his parents located opposite
the house where the wedding celebration was being held. At or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Beatrice Canao, a
Balinciagao resident, saw the accused, her uncle, standing at the door of the house of the victim's parents, also her relatives,
armed with a gun. She inquired what he was doing there and he allegedly replied that he was waiting for the victim. She then
entered the premises to locate an old newspaper with which to wrap food, a rice cake when she saw the victim asleep. When
she left, she saw the accused at the doorway. After disposing of her rice cake (which she gave to a certain Fr. Medina), she
heard two gunshots, fired at an interval of two or three seconds, emanating apparently from the house, to which she shortly
rushed. She allegedly met the accused at the steps leading to the second floor, brandishing his rifle.
ISSUE:
Is there aggravating circumstances?
HELD:
We, however, affirm the trial court insofar as it appreciated dwelling. Although the victim was not shot in his house
(his parents owned it) it has been held that the dwelling place need not be owned by the victim. In that case, it was held:
"Dwelling" is considered an aggravating circumstance because primarily of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
to human abode. According to one commentator, one's dwelling place is a “sanctuary worthy of respect"and that one who
slanders another in the latter's house is more guilty than if he who offends him elsewhere. However, one does not lose his
right of privacy where he is offended in the house of another because as his invited guest, he, the stranger, is sheltered by the
same roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief moment,
“home" to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment.
It is with more reason in this case. The late Elpidio Dalsen died in the house of his very parents, who raised him until he could
be on his own.
Under the circumstances, we affirm the lower court, but only insofar as it held the accused-appellant responsible for taking
the life of Elpidio Dalsen. We hold him liable for simple homicide aggravated by dwelling. Under the Revised Penal Code,
he must suffer reclusion temporal in its maximum period, there being no mitigating circumstances and one aggravating
circumstance.
People vs. Lacanieta (G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000)
FACTS:
On March 20, 1987 about 7 o’clock in the evening, the Wilma Tayo (sic) and her mother Mrs. Consorcia Tayo were
in their house at Sitio Bulho, Cubay-Sermon, Sibalom, Antique. They were about to eat supper when someone called to them
asking to light a cigarette. Wilma Tayo asked who was calling and the answer was "I am Junior, let me light my cigarette".
Wilma Tayo opened the door slightly and there stood accused Jerry Ballenas alias Marlon Marquez. Accused did not light his
cigarette but instead blew the gas lamp and put out the light. He held Wilma Tayo by the wrist.
Accused Jerry Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma Tayo and Consorcia Tayo. Accused told Wilma Tayo to
accompany him to Maria Leong-on, his girlfriend. Wilma Tayo refused as they were about to eat supper. Consorcia Tayo also
told her daughter, Wilma Tayo not go out (sic) because it was already dark. Accused Jerry Ballenas forced Wilma Tayo to go
out with him and struck the hand of Consorcia Tayo and pointed the handgun at her. Accused held Wilma Tayo tightly and
took her away.
Because of the abduction, Consorcia Tayo sought the help of a neighbor, Andres Mallorca, whose house is about 20
meters away from her house but to no avail, Andres Mallorca shut the door on her for fear of Jerry Ballenas as the latter is
known as a member of the dreaded Sparrow Unit of the New People’s Army.
The following morning, Consorcia Tayo reported the abduction of Wilma Tayo to her son-in-law who is a member
of the Integrated National Police. She learned from Aurelio Gamad that her daughter Wilma Tayo was already dead. The
police then proceeded to the scene of the incident.
At the time Wilma Tayo was abducted, she was 19 years old. She was single and a third year student in the
Polytechnic State College of Antique, Sibalom, Antique.
The trial court opined that the contusions on the thighs of WILMA show that her legs were forcibly set apart to
facilitate the rape of WILMA. That WILMA was raped is evidenced by hymenal lacerations, still found fresh on March 21,
1987, the day the autopsy was conducted. We agree with the trial court that based on the evidence, it could readily be concluded
that the perpetrators stabbed WILMA several times after the commission of the rape.[17]
ISSUE:
Was there an aggravating circumstances with regards to dwelling?
HELD:
Yes, Consorcia testified that her house has a ladder that leads to the main door; that BALLENAS was at the main
door when he called WILMA; and that when WILMA refused to go with BALLENAS, it was there that BALLENAS forced
WILMA to go with him.[36] Without a doubt, WILMA was abducted while she was still in her house. Thus, dwelling may be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering that it is not necessary that the accused should have entered the
dwelling of the victim.[37]
BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Article 342 and 48 of the same Code. The two elements of forcible abduction are (1) the taking of a woman
against her will and (2) with lewd designs[38]. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when
10
there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2)
when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.[39] BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passage of
Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that took effect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAS committed
the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death. The use by BALLENAS
of a firearm in committing the crime, a fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court, should have warranted the
imposition of the death penalty. However, since the crime took place prior to the implementation of RA 7659, the trial court
correctly ruled that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance that may have attended the commission of a crime. [40]
US vs. Git (G.R. No. 1581, March 15, 1904)
FACTS:
The facts above stated show that the crime which was committed is murder. The evidence in the case shows that on
the night of the 11th of October, 1902, while Miguel Pastor was sound asleep on the floor of his house, he was struck on the
back of the neck with a piece of hard wood and a rope immediately wrapped around his neck, one end of which was fastened
to his left arm; that the deceased, being for this reason unable to defend himself or to arise, was strangled to death. The
postmortem examination shows that his death was caused by the blow on the neck back of the right ear about two inches from
the petrous part of the temporal bone, and also by asphyxia, he having been strangled to death with the said cord; that the
wound was inflicted with a sharp, pointed instrument which penetrated to the brain.
It is therefore evident that Miguel Pastor was killed under circumstances constituting alevosia, the crime having
been perpetrated while he was asleep, and consequently the assailant without any risk whatever to himself succeeded in
treacherously committing the crime.
The defendant Pedro Git pleaded not guilty, but in his testimony as a witness for the defense said that he killed his
master, Miguel Pastor, on the night in question in obedience to orders received from Pedro and Laureano Mijares, brothers-
in-law of the deceased; that he struck the deceased on the neck with a piece of guayaba wood, used for an axe handle, which
was about as thick as a man's arm and while the deceased was sound asleep in his house; that the Mijares brothers, having met
the witness in the house of Laureano to which he had been invited by Pedro, after giving him several drinks of wine, proposed
to him that he kill Pastor; that although he refused to accede to this proposition at first, he consented after they offered him a
reward of 100 pesos; that they then encouraged him, telling him not to be afraid because one of them was a member of the
town council and that it would be easy to attribute the death to the cholera, which was then epidemic in the town; that after he
was drunk, Laureano gave him a rope with which to tie the victim in case of resistance, and a box of matches with which to
make a light for the purpose of finding the place where Pastor was lying; that accordingly, at midnight, he went to Pastor's
house, and having found the place where he was lying, struck him a blow on the neck with the club he was carrying; that
Pastor cried out for help, whereupon the witness immediately tied the cord he was carrying to one of the hands of the deceased
and then wrapped it several times around his neck and strangled him; that by this means he killed Pastor and while committing
the crime called for Laurencio Sernal and Julio Occia, who came to his assistance, holding the deceased by the feet and hands;
that after Pastor was dead he reported the fact to Laureano and Pedro Mijares and the latter provided the bamboo with which
the body was crated and prepared for burial; that they then called for Basilio Situado and Eugenio Berdaga, who, together with
the witness and the said Occia and Sernal, carried the body out to the cemetery and buried it.
ISSUE:
Was there aggravating circumstance?
HELD:
 No mitigating circumstances can be considered to have been present in the perpetration of the crime. The mitigating
circumstance of drunkenness can not be considered, both because it does not appear that the vice of drunkenness was not
habitual to the defendant, and also because it appears from the evidence that a considerable quantity of wine was given to Git
purposely, which he voluntarily accepted before deciding to commit the. crime. Against the defendant we must consider
aggravating circumstances Nos. 3, 7, 15, and 20 of article 10 of the Penal Code; the crime having been committed in
consideration of the promised remuneration of 100 pesos, with evident premeditation, and in the darkness and silence of the
night and in the dwelling of the deceased. Consequently the judgment of the court below is supported by the evidence and is
US vs RAMOS et al., (G.R. No. 539, April 1, 1902)
Facts:
The court below classified the facts as constituting the crime of murder, and stated that the guilt of the accused as
principals was proven, and that in the commission of the crime aggravating circumstance No. 3 of Article 14 was present —
that is, the commission of the crime in the dwelling house of the injured person.
From the testimony of Luisa Macaraeg, the daughter of the deceased, the most important witness for the prosecution,
it may be deduced that Macaraeg was attacked and wounded outside his house. She says that the accused called him out upon
the deceitful pretext that they wanted to speak to him, and that, he having come down, they attacked him with the bolos they
were carrying, inflicting upon him five wounds and leaving him stretched on the ground. This being so, and it not having been
demonstrated that the place where the attack was made — it certainly was not in the house, which the accused did not enter
— was connected with the house as an integral part thereof, it follows that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of
the crime in the dwelling of the offended party can not properly be considered.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the injured
person is present.
Held:
No. What aggravates the commission in one’s dwelling are the following: 1.) The abuse of confidence which the
offended party reposed in opening the door to him; or 2.) The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with
violence or against the will of the owner.
The fact that the deceased was called down from his house and attacked by the descendants was certainly the attack
was not made in the house but in the vicinity thereof.
Hence, the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the injured person is not
present.
PEOPLE vs AGONCILLO (G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001)
Facts:
Rosalyn P. Salvador, 15 years old, single, student and a resident of Barangay Napti, Batan, Aklan, testified that she
is the victim in this case; that she is 14 years old at the time of rape, having (sic) born on August 22, 1982; that in the evening
of July 2, 1997, her father and mother went to the river to catch fish; that her only companions in their house during that night
were her three (3) younger brothers, namely: Julie (8 years old), Cris (10 years old) and Victor (13 years old); that they went
to bed at around 8:00 P.M.; that at around 11:00 P.M., she roused to look at their wall clock if it is already time to prepare
their breakfast; that suddenly, somebody covered her mouth and told her not to shout or else, he will cut off her head; that the
11
in accordance with the law, and, therefore, for the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed
with respect to Pedro Git, with one-fifth part of the costs, the death penalty to be executed in accordance with the provisions
of Act. No. 451 of the Civil Commission, enacted September 2, 1902.
Judgment will be entered accordingly and the case remanded to the trial court with a certified copy of this decision
for execution. So ordered.
said person was armed with a scythe; that she was then dragged to the banana plantation where she was ordered to lie on the
ground and not to shout under threat that if she will not obey, he will sickle her neck; that the said person then started to kiss
her; that because of the frequent flashes of light in the sky (caused by lightning), she was able to recognize that person as the
herein Gener Agoncillo, the accused; that she knows the accused since the latter was always passing near their house; that the
accused kissed her lips and vagina; that he spread her legs, placed himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her
vagina; that because the accused found it difficult to insert his penis into her vagina, he instead inserted his finger until such
time that he was able to insert his penis; that the accused then pushed and pulled his penis in her vagina; that it was painful;
that after several minutes, the accused stood up and wiped his sweat; that thereafter, she was accompanied by the accused up
to the bamboo plantation and warned her that he will kill them all if she will tell her parents on what happened to her.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is
present.
Held:
No. The fact that the accused dragged the victim to the banana plantation where the victim was raped; that the said
place is around 30 meters away from the house of the victim, the Supreme Court ruled that considering that the victim was
not raped in her home, therefor dwelling cannot be appreciated.
Hence, the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is not present.
PEOPLE VS TAÑO (G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000)
Facts:
On November 6, 1997, at around 7:30 p.m., Amy de Guzman (Amy) was tending a Video Rental Shop owned by
her employer and cousin, Ana Marinay (Ana) located at 153 Loreto Street, Morning Breeze [S]ubdivision, Caloocan City,
accused-appellant Alexander Taño, a relative of Ana's husband Gerry Marinay (Gerry), arrived at said shop. Alexander Taño
then asked Amy about the time when Gerry would be coming home, to which she replied, 10:00 p.m. He then asked about the
time when Ana would be coming home and Amy replied that she did not know.
Thereafter, but still on the same date, Alexander Taño kept on going in and out of the Video Shop, and on the last
time that he went inside said shop, he jumped over the counter of the shop to where Amy was and seized the latter by placing
one of his arms around Amy['s] neck, while his other hand held a knife which he poked at her neck.
Terrified by the attack, Amy started shouting for help but Alexander Taño increased the volume of a karaoke which
was on at the time to drown Amy's cries for help.
Alexander Taño then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where, at knife point, he ordered the latter to undress
and he thereafter started raping her.
However, while Alexander Taño was raping Amy, somebody knocked at the door of the shop prompting the former
to stop what he was doing and ordered Amy to put on her clothes.
Alexander Taño then directed Amy to go upstairs to the second floor of the shop to change clothes as he will be
taking her with him. But suddenly thereafter, Taño pulled her down and punched her in the stomach thrice causing her to lose
her balance. Taño then started cursing her and again placed himself on top of her while poking a knife at her neck. Amy then
pleaded with Taño to just take anything inside the shop and to spare her life, to which Taño replied "no, I will not leave you
here alive.".
But after a while and upon Amy's pleading, Taño put down his knife and while he was kissing Amy, the latter got
hold of the knife which she surreptitiously concealed under the stairs.
Therafter, Taño became violent again and banged Amy's head on the wall causing the latter to lose consciousness.
When she regained consciousness she found herself and Taño inside the toilet of the shop and the latter again banged her head,
this time on the toilet bowl, several times causing Amy to again lose consciousness.
Thereafter, Taño went upstairs and looted the place of valuables belonging to Amy's employer, Ana. Amy, herself
lost her ring, bracelet and wristwatch during the incident in question.
At about 9:00 o'clock p.m. of the same day, Amy's employer Ana arrived and found the shop in disarray with the
"karaoke" in full volume. After turning off the "karaoke["], Ana proceeded to the toilet where she found Amy bathed in blood.
Ana immediately sought the help of Barangay officials of the place and Amy was brought to the "MCU" Hospital
where she was initially treated of her injuries. Amy was, later on, transferred to Jose P. Reyes Memorial Medical Center
(JPRMMC) where she was confined for four (4) days.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is
present.
Held:
No. The evidence shows that the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor
being used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
Article 14 No. 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
 Abuse of confidence
- This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who latter
abuses such trust by committing the crime.
Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
US vs TORRIDA (G.R. No. 7450, 7451 and 7452, September 18, 1912)
Facts:
The appellant Florencio Torrida shortly after entering upon his duties as councilman of the town of Aparri, Province
of Cagayan, gave, in the month of October, 1910, directions to his subordinates that the death of all large animals must be
reported by the owners to him as councilman. These orders were conveyed to the people as directed. Damaso Rabilas lost one
carabao, Bonifacio Rante one, Santiago Rante two, and Felipe Rante one (those of Santiago and Felipe were included in the
same complaint. The respective owners of these animals reported their death to the appellant. Upon the receipt of this
information the appellant informed these owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for each animal, these fees to be turned into
the municipality by him. The owners, believing that the municipality had provided for the payment of such fines, turned over
to the appellant five pesos for each animal that died. There was no provision whatever made by the municipality or any other
entity for the imposition of such fines. These facts clearly constitute the crime of estafa as defined and penalized in paragraph
1, article 535, in relation with paragraphs 1, article 534, Penal Code.
12
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
No. There is nothing to show that the crimes were committed with abuse of confidence. There were no confidential
relations between the appellant and the injured parties. The mere fact that people had reposed in the appellant sufficient
confidence to elect him to a public office does not constitute the aggravating circumstance set forth in number 10. In order to
constitute this circumstance the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal and such as would give the
accused person some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act.
Therefore, abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
PEOPLE vs ALQUEZA (G.R. No. L-28995, August 4, 1928
Facts:
Counsel for the defense finds signs of improbability in the accused having committed the crime in a small house at
a time when his own wife was in the same house; in the fact that the offended party was not physically examined until after
thirty-eight days from the occurrence, and in not offering resistance. But, as a matter of fact, at the time of the incident the
accused's wife, a sickly woman, was in one of the kitchens of the house, some 7 varas distant, according to the accused himself,
from the room where the act took place, or some 6 meters, according to the mother of the offended party, the latter being at
that time a girl of 14 years of age, and physically weak.
With these circumstances in his favor, the accused though not to attract his wife's attention, who at that time was
cooking, and for greater safety, put a piece of cloth into the offended party's mouth, that the latter might not be able to scream.
As regards the resistance offered by the offended party, it appears from the record that she did resist. After the
offended party had verbally and actively refused the accused's illicit proposal, was thrown to the floor, held there and gagged
with a piece of cloth; she was weeping, and as soon as her mother arrived she complained of the outrage.
We find the evidence sufficient and the facts proven constitute the crime of rape.
The lower court took into account the abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
No. We take it that in this particular case the fact that the accused lived in the same house as the offended party is
not enough, in itself, to hold that there is such aggravating circumstance, for after all, that house did not belong to the offended
party. As this court said in the case of United States vs. Cabaya Cruz (4 Phil., 252), it might serve to describe the accused's
conduct as disgraceful, but not as an abuse of confidence, for which it is required to show what was the confidence reposed in
the accused, and that it facilitated the commission of the crime, in order that it might be judged whether or not he had abused
such confidence.
PEOPLE vs LOMERIO (G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000)
Facts:
On May 23, 1993, Vilma Bunagan, together with her eldest son Roberto, went to her parents' house at Tuazon St.,
Marikina, Metro Manila to bring her two-year-old son who was sick. She left behind in their Antipolo house her other five
children, namely, LEONILA, Marvie, Lotis, Marichu and Edmar, who were the ages 10, 8, 7, 6 and 1, respectively.

Worried that something bad could happen to her children while unattended by an adult companion, because her
husband Mario was staying in Divisoria and working as a mason, Vilma instructed Roberto to fetch his younger brother and
sisters from Antipolo. Roberto, however, failed to do so as he went for an interview for a job on the same day.
At about 8:00 p.m., Vilma asked her youngest brother, Salvador Lomerio (SALVADOR), to fetch the children from
Antipolo and bring them to Marikina. SALVADOR agreed and left that night for Antipolo in the company of Roberto.
SALVADOR and Roberto arrived at the house in Antipolo at about 11:00 p.m. Roberto left behind SALVADOR who stayed
for the night. LEONILA was awakened when the two arrived. LEONILA opened the door for SALVADOR and thereafter
went back to sleep. SALVADOR stayed in the sala smoking cigarettes while LEONILA and her brother and sisters were lying
down.
Later, SALVADOR took off his clothes and went near LEONILA. SALVADOR then got LEONILA's hands and
pinned her down. After taking off her shorts and panty, SALVADOR placed himself on top of LEONILA and then forcibly
inserted his organ in hers for a long time. LEONILA was hurting. All she could do was cry. SALVADOR went back to the
sala and slept.
Again, at about 12:00 midnight of the same date, Salvador went back to LEONILA and raped her for the second
time. SALVADOR threatened LEONILA that he would kill all of them if she would report the rapes to anybody. Marvie was
likewise raped by SALVADOR in the early morning of the following day. As if nothing untoward happened, Salvador
instructed the children to dress up so they could go to Tuazon in Marikina and join their mother.
Vilma Bunagan, the mother of LEONILA testified that she learned of the rape on March 25, 1993 from a "kumare",
Anita Fernandez who heard of it from a certain Totoy, who is one of the playmates of Marvie, sister of LEONILA. When
Vilma asked LEONILA, the latter confirmed that SALVADOR abused her. Vilma then brought Marvie and LEONILA to
Camp Crame to have the two girls examined after which, she filed a complaint against SALVADOR with the Cogeo Police
Station.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
No. As to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, it is essential to show that confidence between the
parties must be immediate and personal, such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit
the criminal act.36 The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage
of the offended parties belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.37 In this case, the bare allegation that the victim's
mother asked SALVADOR to fetch her children from Antipolo to Marikina does not prove that she reposed such confidence
in SALVADOR that he could have used to his advantage in committing the crime.
Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is not present.
US vs SOTO (G.R. No. L-5424, October 27, 1909)
Facts:
On the night of the 20th of August, 1906, Prudencio Soto went next door to the house of Saturnino Nicanor, their
houses being situated in the town of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, and requested the latter to permit his daughter Clara Nicanor, 16
years of age, to sleep in his house in order to accompany his wife who was ill, while he, Soto, spent the night away from home
in a gambling house; Saturnino complied with Soto's request and allowed his daughter to go to his neighbor's house to stay
with the latter's wife.
Late that night the girl Clara woke up and asked Soto's wife to strike a light but the latter did not answer; thereupon
Soto approached the girl, embraced her, and tried to raise her skirt and, as she had gotten up and was sitting on the bed
13
endeavored to pull her down onto the floor; and as, in spite of her resistance and opposition, her aggressor persisted in his
endeavor to lie with her and would not let her go, she cried out for help, whereupon Prudencio released her. Then the girl, as
soon as she managed to find a box of matches, struck a light and from the sala of the house where she had been lying with the
sick woman, saw her aggressor in the adjoining room in his undershirt, He, acknowledging his guilt, begged her to pardon
him; but the injured girl after saying to the sick woman, the wife of the accused, who asked her what had happened, "so this
is the way you reward me for keeping you company," left the house, and weeping and with tumbled hair went to her own
house where she informed her father of what had occurred. The latter at once went to the house of the aggressor who, however,
was no longer there. Finding her husband, to which she replied that he had just left. Next morning the girl appeared before the
justice of the peace court and complained of the act committed by the accused.
From the facts above stated it is deduced that the crime of attempted rape was actually committed on the person of
Clara Nicanor, a girl about 16 years of age, late at night, and at the time when the said girl, with her father's permission was
in the house of the accused, by request of the latter that she stay with his wife who was sick, as he had to be away from his
house on the night in question.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
Yes. Prudencio Soto abused the confidence that Saturnino Nicanor had in him when he permitted his daughter, the
aggrieved girl, to sleep that night in the house of the accused in order to bear his sick wife company; this aggravating
circumstance is not counterbalanced in its effects by any mitigating one, for which reason the adequate penalty of prision
correccional should be applied in its maximum degree.
Hence, the court ruled that in the commission of the crime herein the presence of aggravating circumstance of abuse
of confidence must be considered.
US vs VILLORENTE and BISLIG
Facts:
A woman whose husband was not at home, at the earnest solicitation of the three defendants, neighbours of her,
housed and fed them. During the night, while their hostess and her children were sleeping, defendants made a murderous
attack upon them.
Held:
Abuse of confidence is present.
PEOPLE vs EBOL (G.R. No. L-24857, January 23, 1926)
Facts:
About the month of July, 1925, the offended party, Rafaela M. Cruz, lived with her husband and two children, aged
9 and 4 years, respectively, in their house in the barrio of San Roque of the municipality of Zamboanga. On the afternoon of
the 6th day of that month the complaining witness was alone in her house with her two children, as her husband, who had
gone to town, did not come home that afternoon. At about half-past six the defendant, Matias Ebol, uncle of the offended
party, went to the house carrying some fishes which he said, as was the fact, were sent to her husband. The offended party
took the fishes and cooked them and then invited the accused to take supper with her, which invitation he accepted. After the
supper it seemed as though it was going to rain and the accused, fearing that the rain might overtake him on the way, asked
the offended party to allow him to pass the night in her house to which she consented. The accused slept in the parlor and the
offended party in the room accompanied by her two children. Between the two compartments there was a door that was kept
open most of the time. At about 4 o'clock in the morning the complaining witness woke up, feeling that a man, who was the
defendant, was on top of her attempting to have carnal knowledge with her. The offended party did all she could to avoid the
defendant's evil purpose but the latter overcame all her resistance and succeeded in having carnal intercourse with her. When
the defendant left the house at dawn, the offended party immediately repaired to her mother's house in another barrio where
her aunt Encarnacion Aguilar lived, in order to tell them what had happened to her. When she arrived at her mother's house
and after relating the outrage just committed upon her, Encarnacion Aguilar accompanied her to the town to look for the
husband of the complaining witness, and when they found him, she told him all that had happened to her.
That same morning when the defendant saw the complaining witness and Encarnacion Aguilar in the town, he
expressed his resentment to the former for having informed her husband of the matter, telling her that he did it during a
nightmare and prayed Encarnacion to intercede between him and the husband of the offended party to avoid a heavy
punishment . On the afternoon of that same day, July 7, the defendant was in the house of Macario Bonifacio and told the
latter that he had "forced" the offended party and mentioned the fact that he had no other alternative than to plead guilty and
asked him to look after his children. These facts appear from the testimony of the complaining witness, Encarnacion Aguilar
and Macario Bonifacio. Encarnacion Aguilar is a sister of the accused and Macario Bonifacio is his nephew.
About 10 o'clock in the same morning the offended party was examined by Doctor Rodriguez who found within her
vagina positive existence of spermatozoa. The offended party stated that she had not had carnal intercourse with her husband
since the 3d of that month.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
Yes. The crime was committed with abuse of confidence taking into consideration the relationship between the
offended party and the accused and the fact that the latter asked for shelter in her house that night. At any rate the concurrence
of this circumstance justifies the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree.
Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
PEOPLE vs CALISO (G.R. No. L-37271, July 1, 1933)
Facts:
Magdalena Caliso is accused of the crime of murder of a 9-month-old boy, in La Carlota, Negros Occidental, on
February 8 of this year, 1932. The complaint alleges that the accused, being a Maid of Messrs. Esmeralda (Emilio), voluntarily,
illegally and criminally and with the purpose of satisfying a vengeance, I administer a certain amount of concentrated acetic
acid, which is a poisonous substance, to Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., a child of 9 months old, causing burns to his mouth, throat,
intestines and other vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily caused the death of the victim, who succumbed a few
hours late
On the afternoon of February 8, 1932, while the spouses. Messrs. Emilio Esmeralda and Flora Gonzalez were
sleeping taking a nap, suddenly Mrs. Esmeralda woke up because she heard a sharp cry from her son Emilio Esmeralda, 9
months old, who was sleeping in a bed opposite the place where She was sleeping with her husband. When Mrs. Esmeralda
arrived, followed by her husband, to the bed where she had left her son asleep, when she lifted the bed net, she immediately
perceived a strong smell of acetic acid and found her son, who was still crying loudly , with blank eyes, swollen and whitish
lips and bruised face, and when raised, he perceived the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing. Then she shouted asking
who had put acetic acid in her son's mouth, and since she is a pharmacist by profession, she immediately remembered an
antidote that could neutralize the effects of acetic acid and she herself took out lime water and wetting a hydrophilic cotton,
She cleaned the child's mouth, while sending her husband to phone the doctor. A few moments later Dr. Augusto Locsin
14
arrived, who according to his statement, immediately noticed the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and wanted to
make the first cure, washing the child's stomach, but the mother did not want that the washing reached the stomach, for fear
of hurting the throat of the child with the 'catheter', and for this reason the washing could only be done to the throat of the
child. After some time, they arrived, from Bacolod, Drs. Orosa and Ochoa, who by phone had also been called by the victim's
father. Dr. Orosa is the chief medical officer of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and Dr. Ochoa is one of the doctors
residing in that hospital, a specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both doctors positively declared that they had perceived
the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and having concluded that the boy had taken acetic acid, applied the cure to
remove said substance from the child's organism, and after doing The first priests took the child to the Provincial Hospital and
died there a few minutes after arriving.
It is a proven fact that days before this event, when Mr. Emilio Esmeralda returned to his house, from the factory of
the Central La Carlota, at about dawn, not a certain lump that moved in the bottom of his bed in the room of him and his lady
when he spent a few days in La Carlota. Fearing that some thief had entered under the bed, he picked up his gun and threatened
to shoot him who was there if he did not leave. Indeed, a man came out of there and, all trembling, he told Mr. Esmeralda that
he was not a thief, but that he was there because he had been called by the accused with whom he was in love. Mr. Esmeralda
then recriminated him for his act and let him go, telling him not to repeat the act again. When mrs. Flora Gonzalez arrived in
La Carlota a few days later, that is, on the day of the car, Mr. Esmeralda, after breakfast and when the accused was absent for
having gone to the market, he told his lady what had happened in one of the past days, that is, having surprised a man in his
own room and under his bed, attending an appointment he had with the accused. Mrs. Esmeralda, given her education and
being a woman at last, felt very offended and outraged by the act of her maid and, very nervous, I await the return of the
accused, and when she arrived, Mrs. Esmeralda I search in the kitchen, he began to insult her from head to toe, recriminating
her for her immoral act and for allowing herself to hide her lover in the room of her masters, and after scolding the accused,
she returned to her room , and the recrimination that he had just done to the defendant seemed little to him, Mrs. Esmeralda
again returned to the kitchen to reprimand her again, and as Mrs. Esmeralda's nerves did not calm down on these two occasions,
as He returned to the kitchen, undertook new insults to the accused, in terms that when Mrs. Esmeralda put her son to sleep in
the bed, when she found something dirty the pillow covers, again she went to the kitchen and returned to admonish the accused
by recriminating her and saying that she only knew how to have lovers and did not know how to fulfill her duties as a maid.
Hardly two hours scarce to occur these insults, the event happened that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr.
Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
Yes. In the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since
the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child's amah.
1. C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946 (crime committed in a place of religious worship)
THE PEOPLE vs. NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, AVELINA JAURIGUE
FACTS
On September 13, 1942, Amado approached her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he thereupon
suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts, on account of which Avelina, resolute and quick-tempered girl,
slapped Amado, gave him fist blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to herself, until the following morning when she
informed her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-
protection. On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of defendant and appellant, and
surreptitiously entered the room where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She
immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and brought them to her side.
In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the
neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked him to elope with her and that if he should
not marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina again received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in
the afternoon of that same day. At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, September 20, 1942, Nicolas Jaurigue went
to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was the treasurer, in their barrio, just across the provincial road from
his house, to attend religious services, and sat on the front bench facing the altar with the other officials of the organization
and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada. Inside the chapel it was quite bright as there were electric lights. Avelina Jaurigue
entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the
bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the
presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and,
without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On
observing this highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado Capina, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity
and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the
intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with
her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting upon him a wound about 4 1/2 inches
deep, which was necessarily mortal. Her father approached her and asked: "Why did you do that," and answering him Avelina
said: "Father, I could not endure anymore." Amado Capina died from the wound a few minutes later. Barrio lieutenant
Casimiro Lozada, who was also in the same chapel, approached Avelina and asked her why she did that, and Avelina
surrendered herself, saying: "Kayo na po ang bahala sa aquin," meaning: "I hope you will take care of me," or more correctly,
"I place myself at your disposal."
ISSUE:
WON aggravating circumstance of committing a crime in a place of religious worship should be applied.
RULING:
NO. The claim of the prosecution, that the offense was committed by the defendant and appellant, with the aggravating
circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as there is no
evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina
is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation.
In the mind of the court, she committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least
three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; and, in accordance with the provisions
of article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon
her. The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide; and if it should be reduced by two degrees,
the penalty to be imposed in the instant case is that of prision correccional; and pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of Act
No. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
When the deceased sat by her side on the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper
portion of her right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several
people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of the
organization; and under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. And when she gave
Amado Capina a thrust at the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing
his death a few moments later, the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the
facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability..
15
But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant
in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the deceased, immediately after the incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly
thereafter and to remain there subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant, an agent of the authorities (United States vs.
Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472); and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed
against her a few moments before, and upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of
reason and self-control, should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor (People vs. Parana, 64 Phil., 331; People
vs. Sakam, 61 Phil., 27; United States vs. Arribas, 1 Phil., 86).
Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but merely wanted to punish his offending
hand with her knife, as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound. And this is another mitigating
circumstance which should be considered in her favor.
2. G.R. No. 75267 September 10, 1990
PEOPLE vs. CARLOS DELA CRUZ y VENANCIO
FACTS:
At about 8:00 o'clock p.m. on 6 September 1980, Brigida Venancio—then barely seven (7) years old 3 — was walking through
a heavy rain, alone and without an umbrella, bound for her grandparents' house. While Brigida was passing by the Chapel in
Sta. Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, the accused Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio, a blood relative of Brigida (the record does not
disclose in what civil degree), suddenly reached out from the doorway and grabbed Brigida's arm and pulled her inside the
Chapel. While so engaged, the accused covered Brigida's mouth with his one hand twisted her arm with his other arm. Accused
succeeded in placing his organ on top and at least partially into Brigida's private part. 5 Shortly, thereafter, while the two (2)
lay down on the pew, head to head, with panty and pants on, respectively, two (2) young parishioners Luzviminda Mendoza
and Marilou Carpio, entered the Chapel for a scheduled prayer rally and switched on the lights. Luzviminda Mendoza saw
Brigida, who immediately stood up almost simultaneously with the accused, dazed and soaking wet. After the rally,
Luzviminda who was an aunt of Brigida, did not go home directly but went to the house of Brigida's parents 9 and asked the
mother why Brigida was soaking wet and still not at home at that late hour. After Luzviminda had left, the mother asked
Brigida what had happened. Brigida then told her mother she had been violated by Carlos "Bosyo" dela Cruz. 10
The next day, 7 September 1980, In the afternoon of the same day, Brigida was brought by her parents to the National Bureau
of Investigation ("NBI") office in Manila for medical examination. 12 The examination was conducted by Dr. Nieto M.
Salvador who issued a Medico Legal Report dated 7 September 1980 which set forth the “HYMEN IS INTACT” Brigida's
parents, however, did not think very much of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Salvador. Brigida's mother later
testified in court that she believed the examination had been done hurriedly and cursorily and haphazardly. 14 Notwithstanding
the conclusion of Dr. Salvador's report that Brigida's "hymen [was] intact", Brigida's parents were determined to pursue their
complaint on behalf of Brigida. Thus, on 18 September 1980, Brigida and her mother went to the Philippine Constabulary
Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) at Camp Crame for assistance. There, Brigida was again examined by PC Medico-Legal
officer Dr. Desiderio Moraleda who made the following: Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is criminally liable for consummated rape?
RULING:
YES. In this case, however, it is inconceivable and it is extremely difficult for the Court to believe that a seven year old girl,
unmotivated and so blissfully innocent could concoct a narration such as she testified to in Court. Against the narration of a
guileless 7 year old girl, the mere denial and protestation of innocence of a 25 year old man cannot prevail. The Court is
thoroughly convinced of the truth of Brigida Venancio's story. No more need be said. 20
Apropos the above argument, we note, firstly, that medical findings are not indispensable in the prosecution of the crime of
rape. 22 We note, secondly, that the fact that a woman's hymen is found intact does not show that there had been no penetration
by an accused's male organ. It is well-settled doctrine that the slightest penetration of the pudenda is quite sufficient for the
consummation of the crime of rape. In People v. Abonada, 23 the Court pointed out that "the medical finding that the hymen
is intact does not negate rape. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape." 24 Moreover, Dr. Salvador testified that he had found physical
evidence of "manipulation" of the vagina or the vestibule thereof, which is consistent with entry into the lips of the female
part of Brigida:
Brigida's statement that she had felt pain in her private part would have been incomprehensible if there had been absolutely
no penetration, not even of the labia by the accused's male organ. We agree with the conclusion of the trial court that there
had in fact been some penetration at least of the labia and that consequently, the crime that was committed was consummated
rape.
It was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida took place in the Sta. Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a
building dedicated to and actively used for religious worship. The criminal information did not apparently specify the place
of the commission of the rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could have and should have found the presence of the generic
aggravating circumstance of commission of the offense in a place dedicated to religious worship. 27 The trial court made no
mention of such aggravating circumstance in its decision. Because the appropriately imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua
is an indivisible penalty, and was in fact imposed by the trial court, the finding that we here make of the presence of this
generic aggravating circumstance, does not impact upon the imposable penalty. 28
3. G.R. No. 73044 March 26, 1990
PEOPLE vs. LITO PALINO y MERCADO, and ARMANDO MANALANSAN y SANTIAGO
FACTS:
In the evening of February 3,1985, a Sunday, Marieta Guarizo y Ordilar, a 43-year old spinster with ample means was slain
inside her house in Barangay Camaya, Mariveles, Bataan. She sustained a single stab wound on the right chest and died on
the spot. At the time of her violent death, she was living alone and was engaged in the buy-and-sell business, was operating a
stall at the public market and maintaining a boarding house. On the same occasion, the killers also robbed the victim of her
cash amounting to P20,000.00 and pieces of jewelry, such as wrist watches, necklaces, earrings, rings, etc., all valued at
P10,000.00. (tsn., p. 17, pp. 19-22, July 2, 1985).
Manguil informed Cabiling of what he had seen and the latter also peeped through the elevated window. Manguil tried to look
for a padlock with which to lock the outer iron grill gate and, thus, prevent the intruders from escaping. At this juncture, the
female boarders in the adjoining rooms of the victim's house noticed Manguil looking for something and, upon learning that
there were intruders inside the victim's room, started to shout in fear. (tsn., p. 9, June 26, 1985). Momentarily, the inner door
of the victim's house suddenly opened with the two intruders rushing out. Cabiling tried to accost them by holding on to the
outer iron gate. One of the intruders, later identified as accused Palino, who was armed with a pointed steel file with wooden
handle, stabbed Cabiling twice with said instrument, hitting Cabiling on the left chest and injuring left fingers. (tsn., pp. 4-5,
May 23,1985). Manguil, noticing that accused Manalansan was also carrying a bladed instrument, ran away out of fear but
was chased by said accused who, however, failed to overtake him. The malefactors were able to make good their escape by
16
jumping into and crossing the river about 10 meters away from the crime scene. The men then parted ways, the accused
Manalansan running toward the forested area, while the accused Palino proceeding in the direction of the Bataan Export
Processing Zone compound.
After a round-the-clock surveillance of the surrounding area, Pat. Francisco and Cabiling were able to intercept and arrest
accused Lino Palino while on board a Philippine Rabbit Bus at about five o'clock in the morning of February 4, 1985. In the
course of the investigation, accused Palino willingly executed a written statement (Exh. "F") wherein he readily admitted
having participated in the planning and the actual commission of the robbery in question and naming his co-accused, Manding
Manalansan, as his companion in the commission of the crime.
ISSUE:
WON the aggravating circumstance of committing a crime at nighttime be imposed.
RULING:
NO. Neither is nighttime aggravating this case. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the culprit did not resort to
darkness in the commission of the crime as the room where the robbing and the stabbing took place was then illuminated by
a flourescent lamp. We have ruled that nighttime when not especially sought to commit the robbery xx is not aggravating.
Moreover, the jeep where the accused was riding was well-lighted (People v. Cristobal Jr., 91 SCRA 71 [1979]). Hence, while
the crime was committed during nighttime, its having been especially sought is not sufficiently proved for the place was
sufficiently illuminated by light which even enabled the witnesses to recognize the culprits. Moreover, people were mostly
still awake at the time including the boarders nearby so that it cannot really be said that nighttime was especially sought to
facilitate the crime.
Regardless, however, of the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the same will not affect the penalty to be
imposed as death is an indivisible penalty. It is still the penalty for the crime committed but because of Article III, Section 19
of the Constitution, it may be imposed. It shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code also
states that "in all cases in winch the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of
any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed." The accused-appellant
further contends that there was no conspiracy in the commission of the crime because there was no unity of purpose in the
execution of the crime and that while there may have been intent to rob, there was no intent to kill.
4. G.R. No. 138983 May 23, 2001
PEOPLE vs. GENER B. AGONCILLO
FACTS
That she is the victim in this case; that she is 14 years old at the time of rape, that in the evening of July 2, 1997, her father
and mother went to the river to catch fish; that her only companions in their house during that night were her three (3) younger
brothers, namely: Julie (8 years old), Cris (10 years old) and Victor (13 years old); that they went to bed at around 8:00 P.M.;
that at around 11:00 P.M., she roused to look at their wall clock if it is already time to prepare their breakfast; that suddenly,
somebody covered her mouth and told her not to shout or else, he will cut off her head; that the said person was armed with a
scythe; that she was then dragged to the banana plantation where she was ordered to lie on the ground and not to shout under
threat that if she will not obey, he will sickle her neck; that the said person then started to kiss her; that because of the frequent
flashes of light in the sky (caused by lightning), she was able to recognize that person as the herein accused; that she knows
the accused since the latter was always passing near their house; that the accused kissed her lips and vagina; that he spread her
legs, placed himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina; that because the accused found it difficult to
insert his penis into her vagina, he instead inserted his finger until such time that he was able to insert his penis; that the
accused then pushed and pulled his penis in her vagina; that it was painful.
In support of his appeal, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of Rosalyn's assailant
beyond reasonable doubt considering that her identification of him failed to pass the rigid test of positive identification.
Accused-appellant points out the fact that it was very dark on the night Rosalyn was raped and that the illumination produced
by the flashes of lightning rendered it difficult for her to see and identify her assailant. Accused-appellant also argues that his
defense of alibi whereby he claims that he was sleeping in the house of Rogelio De La Cruz from 11:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m.
of July 2, 1997 proves that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place of the commission of the crime.
Moreover, accused-appellant contends that Rosalyn's testimony is tainted with numerous inconsistencies which cast serious
doubt on the veracity of her assertions. Rosalyn underwent a medical examination the results of which were placed in a medico-
legal report yet the injuries which she claimed to have sustained by reason of the assault, i.e. contusions and hematoma on her
lips and neck, were not described therein.
ISSUE:
WON the aggravating circumstance of committing a crime at nighttime be imposed.
RULING:
The trial court properly convicted accused-appellant of the crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, which is the crime
charged in the information. Rosalyn established that when she was raped, accused-appellant brandished a scythe and
threatened her with it. Although the scythe was not presented in court, the production of a weapon used in the commission of
the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for the same may
not have been recovered at all from the assailant.21
We however are constrained to agree with accused-appellant that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and uninhabited place in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. For
nocturnity to properly attend the commission of a crime, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the offense and
that it was purposely sought by the offender. The fact that the offense was committed at night will not suffice to sustain
nocturnidad.23 In the present case, there was no evidence to prove that accused-appellant purposely sought the cover of night
when he raped Rosalyn. In the same vein, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot also be appreciated in the
absence of proof that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.24 The
term uninhabited place does not refer to the distance of the nearest house to the locus criminis for the more important
consideration is whether the place of commission affords a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help.25 The
evidence on record before us fails to provide any basis to conclude that the specific circumstances surrounding the scene of
the rape were such that its state of being uninhabited prevented any reasonable possibility that the victim could have possibly
solicited assistance to fend off her attacker.
The crime of rape is punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
"ART. 335. – When and how rape is committed.- Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
17
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
Since the crime was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, i.e. a scythe, it is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death.
In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty that should thus be imposed is reclusion perpetua.26
Accused-appellant is also hereby ordered to indemnify the victim with the amounts of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages
and P50,000.00 as moral damages.27
5. G.R. No. 1000 March 6, 1903
THE UNITED STATES VS CARLOS SANTIAGO, ET AL
FACTS
On the 29th day of September, 1901, in the barrio of Sacumbaca, pueblo of Talavera, Province of Nueva Ecija, said defendants,
armed with guns and bolos, sequestrated two youths called Abdon Somera and Modesto Balasigue, depriving them of their
liberty, the first named for the period of twenty-nine days and the last named for the period of four days. The defendants and
four other individuals constituted an armed band by whom the act was committed.
After the arraignment and after the trial was commenced Santiago Solitario died. The defendants Carlos Santiago and Jacinto
Alfonso were tried and found guilty and were condemned to the penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor and
accessories, and each to pay their part of the costs of the suit. From this judgment the defendants Carlos Santiago and Jacinto
Alfonso appeal.
Modesto Balasigue, one of the youths detained, testifies that on the 24th day of September of last year he and Abdon Somera
were hunting wild hogs at the place called Sacumbaca, and that they were sequestrated by several individuals; that there were
six persons in the band, all armed, some carrying guns and others bolos; that the defendants Carlos Santiago and Jacinto
Alfonso carried bolos; that witness was detained by the defendants four days, when he escaped from their custody. At the time
he escaped Abdon Somera was still held by them. That he is able to identify the defendants as being the persons who had him
in custody, since he was in their company during the time he was held by them. Three municipal police testified as to the
capture of the defendants and as to finding in their possession the boy Abdon Somera and three stolen carabaos.
Meliton Carlos, president of the municipality of San Miguel de Mayumo, testified that these defendants were captured by the
police; that he was in company with the police when they captured them, and that the defendants had in their possession Abdon
Somera and some carabaos. This witness testifies that upon capturing the defendants they admitted that they had carried off
Abdon Somera to San Miguel de Mayumo. The testimony of this witness and that of the police as to the confession made by
the defendants is not entirely consistent. The first affirms that the defendants said they carried off Abdon Somero to San
Miguel de Mayumo, while the police indicate in their testimony that what was said about the carrying off of Abdon Somera
was related by Abdon Somera himself. However, it appears very clear from the statements of these witnesses that Abdon
Somera and the carabaos were found in the possession of the defendants.
The testimony of Modesto Balasigue is sufficient to support the conviction independent of any confessions that may have been
made by the defendants when captured. He clearly identifies the defendants as the parties who carried him and Abdon Somera
off, and he states that after four days of detention he made his escape while grazing the carabaos. No explanation is made why
the boy Abdon Somera was not adduced as a witness at the trial. But, as stated, the case is fully proven by Modesto Balasigue.
The judge of the Court of First Instance gave the defendants the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating
circumstance and failed to take into consideration the aggravating circumstance of the offense having been committed by an
armed band in cuadrilla. We can see no just reason for giving these defendants the benefit of article 11, nor can we see any
cause for not taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of the act having been committed in cuadrilla. For this
reason we will set aside the judgment of the lower court and enter the proper judgment, which is, that the defendants Carlos
Santiago and Jacinto Alfonso are guilty of the offense of unlawful detention defined and punishable under article 481 of the
Penal Code, and we condemn them to the punishment of ten years and one day of prision mayor in its maximum degree and
accessories, and to the costs of the proceedings.
6. G.R. No. L-48801 August 28, 1942
THE PEOPLE vs. MARCELO LAREZA, ET AL
FACTS
1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ROBBERY; SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION. — The allegation "by passing
through a hole on the ceiling of said bazar, an opening not intended for entrance or egress" is sufficient, and the omission of
an allegation of violence or intimidation against persons or of force upon things, is not fatal to the prosecution for robbery.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code is complete in itself. An information based upon it need not
specifically allege violence, intimidation or force as required in article 293, it being sufficient that any of the five methods
enumerated in said article 302 is averred. Each of these five ways implies either force or its equivalent. Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5
relative to the breaking of walls, doors and closed receptacles, respectively, include the use of actual force, while paragraphs
1 and 3 refer to an element that is tantamount to actual force and takes the place of actual force. In other words, entrance
through an opening not intended for entrance or egress (par. 1) or by the use of false keys, picklocks or similar tools (par. 3)
is deemed by the legislator to have the same effect as the actual breaking of any wall or door. And the drafters of the Revised
Penal Code must have seen that the perversity and the public danger in paragraphs 1 and 3 is no less than in the other
paragraphs.
3. ID.; ID.; PLEA OF GUILTY OFFSETS THE CRIME BEING COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF WAR;
INDETERMINATE PENALTY; RETURN OF STOLEN PROPERTY TO THE OWNER. — The defendants' plea of guilty
offsets the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed on the occasion of war. In accordance with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the accused should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto
mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional. The things carried away by the appellants should also be returned
to the owner thereof.
7. G.R. No. L-28547 February 22, 1974
THE PEOPLE vs. ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, FRANCO BRILLANTES and HEMAN GORRICETA,
accused. ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, and FRANCO
FACTS
On January 9, 1966, Gorriceta, who had just come from Fort San Pedro in Iloilo City, was driving a Ford pickup truck
belonging to his sister, Remia G. Valencia. While he was in front of the Elizalde Building on J. M. Basa Street, he saw Ricardo
Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. They hailed Gorriceta who stopped the truck. Jaranilla requested to bring them to
Mandurriao, a district in another part of the city. Gorriceta demurred. He told Jaranilla that he (Gorriceta) was on his way
home. Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorriceta parked the truck at a distance of about fifty to seventy meters from the provincial
hospital. Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes alighted from the vehicle. Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. The trio
18
walked in the direction of the plaza. After an interval of about ten to twenty minutes, they reappeared. Each of them was
carrying two fighting cocks. They ran to the truck. Jaranilla directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they were being
chased. Gorriceta drove the truck to Jaro (another district of the city) on the same route that they had taken in going to
Mandurriao.
It is important to note the positions of Gorriceta and his three companions on the front seat of the track. Gorriceta the driver,
was on the extreme left. Next to him on his right was Suyo. Next to Suyo was Brillantes. On the extreme right was Jaranilla.
While the truck was traversing the detour road near the Mandurriao airport, then under construction, Gorriceta saw in the
middle of the road Patrolmen Ramonito Jabatan and Benjamin Castro running towards them. Gorriceta slowed down the truck
after Patrolman Jabatan had fired a warning shot and was signalling with his flashlight that the truck should stop. Gorriceta
stopped the truck near the policeman. Jabatan approached the right side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all the occupants
of the truck to go down. They did not heed the injunction of the policeman. Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it.
Suyo did nothing. Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started
the motor of the truck and drove straight home to La Paz, another district of the city. Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan.
Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicidio with the aggravating circumstances of use of
a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and recidivism. The fiscal utilized
Gorriceta as a state witness. Hence, the case was dismissed as to him.
In convicting Suyo, Jaranilla and Brillantes of robo con homicidio, the trial court assumed that the taking of the six fighting
cocks was robbery and that Patrolman Jabatan was killed "by reason or on the occasion of the robbery" within the purview of
article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
In this appeal the appellants contend that the trial court erred in not finding that Gorriceta was the one who shot the policeman
and that Jaranilla was driving the Ford truck because Gorriceta was allegedly drunk. Through their counsel de oficio, they
further contend that the taking of roosters was theft and, alternatively, that, if it was robbery, the crime could not be robbery
with homicide because the robbery was already consummated when Jabatan was killed.
The improbability of appellants' theory is manifest. The truck belonged to Gorriceta's sister. He was responsible for its
preservation. He had the obligation to return it to his sister in the same condition when he borrowed it. He was driving it when
he saw Brillantes, Jaranilla and Suyo and when he allegedly invited them for a paseo. There is no indubitable proof that
Jaranilla knows how to drive a truck.
The theory of the defense may be viewed from another angle. If, according to the appellants, Gorriceta asked Jaranilla to drive
the truck because he (Gorriceta) was drunk then that circumstance would be inconsistent with their theory that Gorriceta shot
Jabatan. Being supposedly intoxicated, Gorriceta would have been dozing when Jabatan signalled the driver to stop the truck
and he could not have thought of killing Jabatan in his inebriated state. He would not have been able to shoot accurately at
Jabatan. But the fact is that the first shot hit Jabatan. So, the one who shot him must have been a sober person like
Jaranilla.Moreover, as Jaranilla and his two comrades were interested in concealing the fighting cocks, it was Jaranilla, not
Gorriceta, who would have the motive for shooting Jabatan. Consequently, the theory that Gorriceta shot Jabatan and that
Jaranilla was driving the truck appears to be plausible.
Was the taking of the roosters robbery or theft? There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages in
the yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed. Hence, article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code cannot be invoked.
Neither could such taking fall under article 299 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house
(casa habitada), public building or edifice devoted to worship. The coop was not inside Baylon's house. Nor was it a
dependency thereof within the meaning of article 301 of the Revised Penal Code.
Having shown the inapplicability of Articles 294 and 299, the next inquiry is whether the taking of the six roosters is covered
by article 302 of the Revised Penal Code which reads:
ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in private building.—Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a
building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299, if the value of the property exceeds 250 pesos, shall
be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods provided that any of the following circumstances is
present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools.
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if the same be
broken open elsewhere.
In this connection, it is relevant to note that there is an inaccuracy in the English translation of article 302. The controlling
Spanish original reads:
ART. 302. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular.—El robo cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio
que no sea de los comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo 299, ... . (Tomo 26, Leyes Publicas 479).
The term "lugar no habitado" is erroneously translated. as "uninhabited place", a term which may be confounded with the
expression "uninhabited place" in articles 295 and 300 of the Revised Penal Code, which is the translation of despoblado and
which is different from the term lugar no habitado in article 302. The term lugar no habitado is the antonym of casa habitada
(inhabited house) in article 299. One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things under Articles 299 and 302 is that
the malefactor should enter the building or dependency, where the object to be taken is found. Articles 299 and 302 clearly
contemplate that the malefactor should enter the building (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). If the culprit did not
enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. (See Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1932 edition, p. 688).
Thus, where the accused broke the show-window of the Bombay Palace Bazar at Rizal Avenue, Manila and removed forty
watches therefrom, the crime was theft and not robbery because he did not enter the building. The show-window was outside
the store. (People vs. Adorno, CA 40 O. G. 567, per Montemayor, J., who later became a member of this Court). *
In the instant case, the chicken coop where the six roosters were taken cannot be considered a building within the meaning of
article 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the robbery by means
of any of the five circumstances enumerated in article 302.
The term "building" in article 302, formerly 512 of the old Penal Code, was construed as embracing any structure not
mentioned in article 299 (meaning not an "inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship" or any dependency
thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of personal property. As thus construed, a freight car used for the shipment of sugar
was considered a private building. The unnailing of a strip of cloth nailed over the door, the customary manner of sealing a
freight car, was held to constitute breaking by force within the meaning of article 512, now article 302. (U.S. vs. Magsino, 2
Phil. 710).
19
As may be seen from the photographs (Exhs. A and A-1) Baylon's coop, which is known in the dialect as tangkal or kulungan,
is about five yards long, one yard wide and one yard high. It has wooden stilts and bamboo strips as bars. The coop barely
reaches the shoulder of a person of average height like Baylon. It is divided into six compartments or cages. A compartment
has an area of less than one cubic yard. A person cannot be accommodated inside the cage or compartment. It was not intended
that a person should go inside that compartment. The taking was effected by forcibly opening the cage and putting the hands
inside it to get the roosters. Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not
robbery. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused reveals
that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking
of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes of theft (People vs. De Leon, 49
Phil. 437, citing decision of Supreme Court of Spain dated July 13, 1894 and 36 C. J. 799; People vs. Tumlos
Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating. Those circumstances facilitated the commission of the theft. The
accused intentionally sought the cover of night and used a motor vehicle so as to insure the success of their nefarious enterprise
(People vs. Tan, 89 Phil. 647, 660; People vs. Gardon, 104 Phil. 372).
Also to be appreciated against appellants Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was alleged
in the information. They admitted their previous convictions for theft (130, 132 tsn; Exhs. I and J; Art. 14[9], Revised Penal
Code). Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an indeterminate
sentence (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103).
The evidence for the prosecution does not prove any conspiracy on the part of appellants Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes to kill
Jabatan. They conspired to steal the fighting cocks. The conspiracy is shown by the manner in which they perpetrated the
theft. They went to the scene of the crime together. They left the yard of Baylon's residence, each carrying two roosters. They
all boarded the getaway truck driven by Gorriceta.
The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the roosters. It is not an indispenable element
of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him from its owner (People vs. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665;
Duran vs. Tan, 85 Phil. 476; U.S vs. Adiao, 38 Phil. 754).
As co-principals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks, they are (a) each sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as
maximum and (b) ordered to indemnify solidarily the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500).
Each appellant should pay one-third of the costs.
As to the liability of Elias Jaranilla for theft and homicide, with direct assault upon an agent of authority, trial court should
render a new judgment consistent with this opinion (See Sec. 19, Art. IV, Constitution).
The "uninhabited place" mentioned in Article 302 is a building, because paragraphs Nos. 1 and 3 speak of "entrance," which
necessarily refers to a building. (The Revised Penal Code by Luis B. Reyes, Vol. II, 1968, p. 617.)
In that way, I believe the true and correct meaning of the provision is clarified without attributing any possible misconstruction
to faulty literal translation, which I am convinced does not exist. I reiterate, the error in translation noted in the main opinion
is inevitable — for while the literal translation is indubitably accurate, on the other hand, as a matter of construction, the
correct interpretation is different. Evidently, the Spanish text uses "lugar" for house, building or structure, and, to my mind,
that is not the sense that word is usually understood in Spanish. But I agree that what is contemplated in Article 302 is not
"despoblado" but simply an unoccupied or uninhabited house, building or structure. In other words, it appears that the correct
expression that should be in Article 302 is "uninhabited house," disregarding, consequently, the inaccurate reference to "lugar"
in the Spanish text and sticking, by way of construction, to the correct concept of the thing really contemplated.
8. G.R. No. L-2390 April 24, 1950
THE PEOPLE vs. PEDRO BALDERA, MIGUEL BLAY, JOSE DE LA CRUZ, and FOUR OTHERS
FACTS
The evidence shows that at about 4 a.m. on December 23, 1947, a Casa Manila bus loaded with passenger left Batangas,
Batangas, bound for Manila. On the highway in barrio Calansayan, municipality of San Jose, same province, it was held up
by a group of five or six armed men. One of these, later identified as herein appellant Pedro Baldera, who was then armed
with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed by a hail of bullets coming from different directions. As a result,
several passengers, among them Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza, were wounded. After the firing had ceased,
appellant got on the bus and, threatening the passengers with his gun, took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana
Villena. The wounded were taken to the hospital, where Jose Cabrera died from his wounds on the following day.
For the above crime four persons were prosecuted and tried under an information charging "robo en cuadrilla con homicidio
y lesiones graves y lesiones menos graves." The case was dismissed as to two of the accused due to insufficiency of evidence.
But the other two, Pedro Baldera and Miguel Blay, were, after trial, found guilty as charged and sentenced, the first to capital
punishment, and the second to life imprisonment, both to pay the corresponding indemnity and proportionate costs. Only the
case against Pedro Baldera is now before us.
At the trial, Ponciana also identified appellant as the one who relieved her of her money at gunpoint, saying that she had a
good look at his face for she was watching him closely for fear that he might fire at her. She also declared that when she was
sent for by the chief of police to identify appellant, the latter approached her as she came into the office of said officer and
asked her forgiveness. Two other passengers of the bus declared at the trial that appellant resembles the one who stopped the
bus and robbed its passengers.
ISSUE:
WON two aggravating circumstance be imposed to the accused.
RULING:
YES. we find appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious physical injuries with two
aggravating circumstances. But there being no sufficient vote to impose the extreme penalty, appellant can be sentenced to
life imprisonment only.
Counsel also contends that the lower court erred in holding that the crime committed is robbery in band, alleging that there
was no sufficient proof that the perpetrators thereof numbered more than three armed men. The fact, however, that there were
more than three armed men in the group that held up the bus appears in appellant's own confession and is also established by
the uncontradicted testimony of one of the government witnesses. And the point is really not material because in the crime of
robbery with homicide it is not essential that the robbery be in band, although that circumstance may be taken into account as
an aggravation in the imposition of the penalty. And even if it be not be taken into account as such in this case, there would
still remain the other aggravating circumstance that the robbery was perpetrated by attacking a vehicle (art. 295, R. P. C.),
which is not offset by any mitigating circumstance.
The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of his previous
conviction for theft, it appearing that crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947 (Exhibit E) while the offense now
charged took place seven days before that date.
20
9.G.R. No. 7450, 7451 and 7452 September 18, 1912
THE UNITED STATES vs. FLORENCIO TORRIDA
FACTS
The appellant shortly after entering upon his duties as councilman of the town of Aparri, Province of Cagayan, gave, in the
month of October, 1910, directions to his subordinates that the death of all large animals must be reported by the owners to
him as councilman. These orders were conveyed to the people as directed. Damaso Rabilas lost one carabao, Bonifacio Rante
one, Santiago Rante two, and Felipe Rante one (those of Santiago and Felipe were included in the same complaint. The
respective owners of these animals reported their death to the appellant. Upon the receipt of this information the appellant
informed these owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for each animal, these fees to be turned into the municipality by him.
The owners, believing that the municipality had provided for the payment of such fines, turned over to the appellant five pesos
for each animal that died. There was no provision whatever made by the municipality or any other entity for the imposition of
such fines. These facts clearly constitute the crime of estafa as defined and penalized in paragraph 1, article 535, in relation
with paragraphs 1, article 534, Penal Code.
Appellant insists that the trial court erred (1) finding that there were present in the commission of these crimes the aggravating
circumstances numbers 10, 11, and 18 of article 10 of the Penal Code; and (2) in imposing the penalty set forth in article 399
of said code. These provisions read:
ART. 10. The following are aggravating circumstances:
10. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence.
11. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
18. That the accused is a recidivist.
ART. 399. Any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of the crimes
enumerated in chapter 4 of the section 2 of title 13 of this book shall, in addition to the penalties therein prescribed, suffer a
penalty ranging from temporary special disqualification in its maximum degree to perpetual special disqualification.
ISSUE:
WON there is any aggravating circumstatnces in the crime committed.
RULING
We agree with the counsel that there were not present the aggravating circumstances mentioned in numbers 10 and 18, supra,
because there is nothing to show that the crimes were committed with abuse of confidence. There were no confidential relations
between the appellant and the injured parties. The mere fact that people had reposed in the appellant sufficient confidence to
elect him to a public office does not constitute the aggravating circumstance set forth in number 10. In order to constitute this
circumstance the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal and such as would give the accused person
some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act.
These three cases were tried together in the court below. The judgments in all three of these cases were rendered at the same
time; in fact, the three judgments are contained in the same paragraph and were pronounced at the same time. A recidivist is
one who at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been convicted by the final judgment of another crime embraced in
the same title of the Penal Code. At the time the trial court held that the accused was twice a recidivist there was no final
judgment against him. In fact, the judgments imposed could not have become final until after the expiration of fifteen days
and this only in the event that an appeal was not taken. So it is clear that the aggravating circumstance mentioned in number
18 was not present.
It is insisted that the appellant in committing these crimes did not take advantage of his public position or office. in this we
cannot agree with counsel. The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him in a position to commit these
crimes. If he had not been councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on
account of his being councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that
they made the payments. It is true that he had no right to either impose or collect any fines whatsoever. It is also true that a
municipal councilman is not an official designated by law to collect public fines. But these facts do not destroy or disprove
the important fact that the accused did by taking advantage of his public position deceive and defraud the injured parties out
of the money which they paid him. This holding is not in conflict with the doctrine enunciated in the case of United States vs.
Casin (8 Phil. Rep., 589). In that case Casin and Calleja, the offended party, lived in the same house. Calleja gave Casin two
pesos for the purpose of buying her a cedula in order that she might institute a civil action in the courts. Casin received the
money promising to buy the cedula. He neither purchased the cedula nor returned the money but converted it to his own use.
The fact that he was a councilman did not have anything to do with his receiving the two pesos. He acted purely in his private
capacity. Consequently, he did not in any manner take advantage of his public position.
It is also insisted that it was error to take into consideration the aggravating circumstance number 11 and also impose the
penalty provided in article 399. The aggravating circumstance number 11 was found to be present and was taken into
consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty which the law says must be imposed. The disqualification mentioned
in article 399 is a part of the penalty to be imposed. This penalty is never imposed as an aggravating circumstance because
from the very nature of the penalty it cannot be so considered.
There being present one aggravating circumstance and no extenuating circumstances in the commission of these crimes, the
penalty should be imposed in each case in its maximum degree, which is four months of arresto mayor. In the first and second
cases the penalties imposed are in accordance with the law; in the third the court erred in imposing six months instead of four.
This penalty is, therefore, reduced to four months. In all other respects the judgment appealed from are affirmed, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.
10. G.R. No. L-3008 March 19, 1951
FEDERICO SORIANO vs. PEOPLE
FACTS
Federico Soriano was charged on August 22, 1945, with the crime of theft of one electric motor marked "Cyclix," with Western
Electric Company cable, and one lantern slide projector, with their corresponding accessories, for the operation of motion
pictures, valued at P6,000, belonging to the eagle Cinema Co., Inc., represented by its President Manager, Teodoro S.
Benedicto.
Taking into account the respective contentions of the parties and the evidence produced in support thereof, We are of the
opinion despite Emilia Saenz' letter (Exhibit E) where she writes to Benedicto that Federico Soriano was only in charge of
collecting the rents and of transmitting them to her, that appellant was their representative and duly appointed substitute
administrator in her stead. It seems also clear that, because of the disturbance caused by the war, the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc.,
was indebted to the Saenz for rents due on account of the lease; and that appellant in the exercise of the powers conferred upon
him (Exhibit 16) could have sued said debtor to foreclose the mortgage executed by the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., in favor of
21
his principals, if he could not have come to a better understanding with Teodoro S. Benedicto. It is no longer disputed that the
properties of the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., in the building were losts, and that the lantern slide projector (Exhibit C) and the
"Cyclix" motor generator (Exhibit D) have been found in the house and in the possession of the appellant after having
repeatedly denied any knowledge of the equipment and accessories of the Cine and disclined any responsibility for their loss.
ISSUE:
WON the appellant be held liable for the crime of theft of such properties?
RULING:
NO. Counsel for appellant contends that the latter is entitled to an acquittal, because in the case at bar
1. All the elements of theft are not present;
2. There was no criminal intent (on the part of the appellant);
3. The action of the appellant is susceptible of two interpretations, both consistent with his innocence or guilt. Therefore, he
should be acquitted; and
4. The guilt of the appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of theft of which appellant stands charged and convicted, is covered by the 1st paragraph of Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, which read as follows:
ART. 308 Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with intent of gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. -
--and we agree with counsel for appellant that in order to justify a conviction for theft the following elements must concur,
namely: (a) that a chattel or personal property must have been taken or abstracted; (b) that there be intent of gian when the
taking away of the article took place; (c) that the property stolen be owned by another; and (d) that in the taking, neither
violence of intimidation against persons or force upon things be employed.
With regard to the "taking," appellant contends that he did not execute this element of theft because being an attornye-in-fact
of the heirs of Saenz, he acted for his principals, and for all intents and purposes of the power conferred upon him, he was the
principal himself and, naturlly, he could not steal something belonging to him under the principle that "Rei nostrae furtum
facera non pos sumus". The power of attorney (Exhibit 16) clearly empowered the appellant "to ask, demand, sue for, recover,
collect and receipt for any and all sums of money . . . and other things of value of whatever nature or kind," and gave him "full
power to do anything requisite and necessary to be done in the premises as fully as I (Emilia Saenz) could if persnally preent,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney adn substitute attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof." But appellant fails to take two important factors into condieration, to writ: firstly, that when he took, as he finally
admitted to have taken, the lantern slike projector and the "Cyclix" motor generator from the Eagle-Theater, he did not really
act in behal and representation of this principals, for otherwise he would not have repeatedly denied having taken said
properties and insiunated that they had been taken by the Japanese; and secondly, that even his principals could not have taken
and appropriated said properties for themselves without previous and proper action in court, because no mortgage creditor can
foreclose the property mortgage to him witout judicial proceedings.
Under the facts of this case, as found by the Court of Appeals, the petitioner cannot rightly be convicted of the crime of theft,
because he had not acted with intent of gain. The Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., was indebted to the Saenz heirs (represented by
Emilia Saenz) for rents of a building leased by the company. The apparatus, accessories and equipment of the Eagle Cinema
Co., Inc, contained in the leased building, were mortgaged to Saenz to secure the payment of siad rents. The petitioner was
the representative and duly appointed substitute administrator of the premises, in place of Emilia Saenz. Indeed, the petitioner
could have sued the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., and foreclosed its mortgage.

The fact that the lantern slide projector and the "Cyclix" morot generator forming part of the equipment of the Eagle Co., Inc.,
were taken by the petitioner (after the Japanese Ishii, who had ceased to operate the business, delivered to the petitioner the
keys of the building where said equipment was stored) and removed to and kept in petitioner's house, is consistent with the
theory that the petitioner, to protect the interest of his principals, in good faith believed that he had the right to do so under his
powers and by virtue of the mortgage covering said equipment, espcially because the petitioner was empowered not only to
recover, collect or receive money, debts or dues, but also to take or recover "other things of value of whatsover nature or kind"
that may be due from the lessee. That the petitioner was wrong in his belief, or had been so over-zealous in the matter as to
have even denied that the articles in question were in this possession, made him at most civilly liable but does not go to show
that he acted with intent of personal porofit. The intent of gain cannot be inferred from the bare acts of the petitioner, in view
of thepeculiar circumstances of the case that supply plausible reasons for said acts. Had he sold or tried to dispose of the
article.

22
23