Aggravating Circumstances

1.) People vs Legaspi

PEOPLE v. EDGAR LEGASPI Y LIBAO, GR No. 136164-65, 2001-04-20

Facts:

the above-named accused while armed with a bladed weapon, with lewd design and by means of force...
and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
HONORATA ONG Y GUEVARRRA, against her will and without her consent.

the above-named accused while armed with bladed weapon, with intent to gain and by means of...
force, violation and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and
divest cash money in the amount of P500.00 to the damage and prejudice of the said HONORATA ONG Y
GUEVARRRA

The supreme penalty of death having been imposed for the rape, the case is now before this Court on
automatic review. As for accused-appellant's conviction for robbery, accused-appellant did not appeal
therefrom, thus, as to that portion of the judgment against him, the... same has become final and
executory... complainant Honorata Ong, who was then sleeping inside her house with her three
daughters, was awakened by the sound of their door opening. She initially thought that it was her
husband coming home from work. When Honorata... opened her eyes, however, she saw a man armed
with a knife standing by her feet. More terrifying, the man already had his pants and briefs down on his
knees and he was pointing to her eldest daughter. Alarmed, Honorata told the man not to touch her
daughter. The man poked his... knife at her and told her to stand up and then was made to lie down on
the adjacent sofa. Thereafter, the man removed Honorata's panties and had sex with her. All this time,
he had his knife at Honorata's neck. Honorata noticed that the man reeked of alcohol. After slaking his...
lust, Honorata's assailant stood up then asked for money. Since the man still had his knife pointed at her,
Honorata could do nothing but comply. She gave him the only money she had, several bills amounting to
P500.00.

That afternoon, Honorata, together with her husband, reported the incident to the barangay captain.

On the other hand, all that accused-appellant could interpose as defenses were denial and alibi, stating
that at the time of the alleged incident, he was at his home in Manapat Street sleeping. Accused-
appellant also testified that he had been previously convicted of homicide... and Roberto Eugenio, the
victim therein, was a resident of the exact same address where complainant Honorata was living.

Accused-appellant hinted at the possibility that relatives of Roberto Eugenio had conspired with
complainant Honorata to get rid of him.

Incidentally, Rivera Street where the alleged crime occurred is only two streets away from Manapat.
Given the above circumstances, the trial court, as earlier mentioned, found accused-appellant guilty of
rape aggravated by dwelling and nighttime, and of robbery aggravated by dwelling; and thereupon,
imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death for the rape, and an... indeterminate penalty of six
months to nine years for the robbery.

De Leon, Jr., J., on leave.

eon, Jr., J

Issues:

Accused-appellant's plea for reversal is founded on the arguments that his guilt was not shown beyond
reasonable doubt, and that complainant Honorata's testimony is replete with inconsistencies. He also
insists on his alibi and alleged insanity.

accused-appellant contends that Honorata lied when she claimed not having known accused-appellant
or his family prior to the incident.

he claims that the court a quo erred in not ruling that he is entitled to the exempting circumstance of
insanity.

Ruling:

As to accused-appellant's submission that the absence of spermatozoa in Honorata's organ negates the
commission of rape, the same rings hollow, the presence or absence of spermatozoa being immaterial in
the prosecution of a rape case, as it is well-settled that it is... penetration, however slight, and not
ejaculation, that constitutes rape

False testimony or incriminatory machinations must be proved by evidence more substantial than a
voter's registration record.

In his defense, accused-appellant raises the defense of alibi, claiming that he was asleep at his house at
#86 Manapat Street, Tañong, Malabon at the time of the incident. Accused-appellant's defense of alibi
must, however, be looked upon with suspicion, not only because... it is inherently weak and unreliable,
but also because it can be easily fabricated and concocted

For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the
commission of the crime, but... also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or
within its immediate vicinity

In the case at bar, accused-appellant has failed to meet both requisites.

Counterbalanced against Honorata's conduct immediately after the incident and her positive
identification of accused-appellant as her assailant,... accused-appellant's defense of alibi is unavailing

To prove his insanity, accused-appellant's counsel points to his confinement at the National Center for
Mental Health prior to the incident in question.
Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of
the incident.

Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the
moral... system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes
committed under its influence

The Court cannot, therefore, appreciate the defense of insanity brought by accused-appellant.

In sum, we find that the trial court did not err in finding Honorata's testimony to be clear,
straightforward, and worthy of credence, and consequently, in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

We now come to the proper penalty. Under Article 335 (now Article 266-B) of the Revised Penal Code,
"whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death."

Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, the trial court
imposed the supreme penalty of death on accused-appellant for the crime of rape.

* Taking advantage of public office

Generic

Specific

Qualifying

Inherent- ex. Crimes against public morals

2.) People vs. Capalac

-Stabbing, apparently without provocation, of one Moises Capalac by Jimmy Magaso

-September 20, 1970, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, duly licensed cockpit in the city
of Iligan

-The aggressor, Jimmy Magaso, attempting to escape, was confronted by two brothers of
Moises, Jesus Capalac and appellant Mario Capalac.

-The attempt of Magaso to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two
shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two
brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not to be appeased.
He was pistol-whipped by appellant Mario Capalac, being dealt several blows on the
head and the face. After he had fallen to the ground, Jesus Capalac stabbed the deceased
on the chest three or four times. He was brought to the hospital where he died, the
cause, according to the coroner's report, being "haemorrhagic shock due to a wound of
the heart"

-After trial duty held, Mario Capalac was convicted of murder. LC also found that the
crime was committed with evident premeditation and treachery. LC also held that the
appellant took advantage of his position as a police officer and employed means or
brought about the circumstances which added ignominy to the natural effects of his act.
It sentenced him to suffer the death penalty.

-Present case

-4 errors:

1) Absence of conspiracy

-The circumstances indicative of the manner, by which the two brothers, as well as their
two companions, who apparently were not apprehended as they were not included in
the information, attacked the hapless victim, would suffice to show conspiracy. They
apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises Capalac. They
were impelled by a common purpose. They acted in concert.

2) Deny the existence of qualifying

-crime was one of murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present.
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms 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. Magaso's situation was hopeless. Any defense he could
have put up would be futile and unavailing. His hands were in surrender. That
notwithstanding, he was pistol-whipped. When lying prostrate on the ground, he was
stabbed. It must be remembered that, according to the testimonial evidence, there were
two other persons assisting the brothers Capalac. If they were not included in the
information, the explanation would appear to be that they managed to elude capture.
There was no risk, therefore, to the aggressors, no hope for the victim.

3) Deny the existence of aggravating circumstances

-erred. Justice Mapa, in United States v. Alavares, made clear that an aggravating
circumstance must be "as fully proven as the crime itself".

-no evidence of premeditation

-they were prompted by the desire to avenge their brother

-the mere fact that the appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the police force did not
itself justify that the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender
of his public position be considered as present

4) Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense

5)"discarding the ante mortem statement of the victim"

Accused is found guilty of murder, decision modified. Accused is sentenced to 10 years

and one day prision mayor minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of
reclusion temporal maximum. LC affirmed.

3.) People vs. Gapasin

6th day of October, 1979 at Barangay San Jose, municipality of Roxas, province of
Isabela, Philippines, accused CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES,
LORENZO SORIANO, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES
and NICK SALUDARES, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one
another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, shoot Jerry
Calpito with an Armalite rifle SN No. 3267485 Cal. 5.56 issued to the accused PC soldier
under MR dated September 17, 1979 by the 118th PC Company, inflicting multiple
gunshot wounds on the body of the latter, step and kick the victim several times, causing
his instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds

-That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the
accused having stepped and kicked the body of the decease; (2) abuse of superior
strength, and (3) taking advantage of public position, with respect to the accused CIC
Loreto Gapasin who is a PC soldier

Procedural shit, trial court ensued after 6 years, several of the accused posted bail

-According to the prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the
house of Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 PM of October 6, 1979 after attending the
"pamisa" for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito followed them. While they
were walking along the barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite
rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant fired more shots at him. Thereafter,
accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of Calpito. Upon
hearing the shots, Faustino Calpito ran to succor her fallen husband.

-Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his
gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who
would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as
the Saludares' group chased them.

-Body of Calpito autopsied and found out that victim sustained four bullet wounds: (1)
on the right lateral side of the arm fracturing the humerus; (2) on the right lateral side of
the thorax, anterior, between the 5th and 6th ribs with exit wound at the sternum; (3) on
the left side of the thorax, anterior, between the 5th and 6th ribs; and (4) on the right
fronto-parietal portion of the head "severing the skull and brain tissues"

-victim was in a standing position when he was shot by someone positioned at his right

Defense Version:

-Appellant invoked self-defense. He testified that he was issued a mission order on Sep
23, 1979 to investigate a report re: presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio San
Jose, Roxas, Isabela

-The following day, he was instructed by Sgt. Dominador Ignacio to get in touch with
Nicanor Saludares who may be able to give him ingo on the identities of the persons
with unlicensed firearms in the place

-When appellant met Saludares, he was informed that Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed
firearm

-Oct. 5, 1979, Saludares informed appellant that it would be best for him to see Jerry
Calpito the following day as a relative of the latter would be buried

-Next day, appellant went to Barangay San Jose, arriving there at 12 noon

-Went to house of Saludares after which went to house of Entend Teppang to attend the
"pamisa"

-Saludares advised appellant against confronting Calpito because it would create a

disturbance at the "pamisa". He also told appellant that Calpito would surely pass
Saludares' house on his way home

-Appellant and Nicanor Saludares positioned themselves inside the yard of the latter,
when appellant saw Calpito, he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When
Calpito was about three meters away from him, appellant asked him what was bulging in
his waist, instead of answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the
waist and fired twice at the appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the
ground simultaneously firing his armalite

-Appellant's claim of self-defense is belied by finding of the trial court on the nature of
the wounds, also had he and Saludares not intended to harm the victim, they could have
simply apprehended him

-Premeditation was present and should be considered as a generic aggravating

circumstance

-The information alleged three other generic aggravating circumstances: ignominy,

abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of public position

-TC correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of the of the autopsy conducted by the
doctor who failed to find any other injuries such as bruises and contusions which may
indicate that the victim was kicked by his assailants

-corrected held treachery abuse of superior strength

-TC properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as aggravating

circumstance

-Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary committed the crime with an

armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order

-Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's favor but this is offset by the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position; therefore, only the
generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against
appellant

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, with the attendance of
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstances
of taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation; penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of the late Jerry Calpito, Sr. the sum of P88, 596 as actual
or compensatory damages, P30,000 as death indemnity; P20,000 as moral damages;
P30,000 as exemplary damages

* Insult to public authority

4.) People vs. Tiongson

At about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, accused Rudy Tiongson escaped
from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la Cruz
and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted
Homicide

-While in the act of escaping Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro

-Upon arraignment, the said accused pleaded guilty

-evidence presented by the prosecution does not warrant, nor support, the finding that
the killing of Pat. Zosimo Gelera was qualified by treachery since the prosecution failed
to present any eyewitness who directly saw the killing of Pat. Gelera

-In the instant case, it does not appear how and in what position the victim was when he
was killed so that it cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted a mode or
means of attack tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of the offense
without risk to himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the victim might
put up

-Considering that PC Constable Canela had been sufficiently fore

5.) People vs. Magdueno

-On 15th day of October, 1980 the accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, did there and then wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot one FERNANDO M. DILIG, inflicting upon the latter mortal
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

-Committed with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation that

the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise; and that the
crime was committed in contempt with or with insult to authorities

On October 15, 1980, a few minutes past 8:00 o'clock in the morning, as soon as the late
Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat inside his jeep parked
near his house at the corner Roxas and D. Mendoza Streets, Puerto Princesa City, all of a
sudden, two successive gunshots burst into the air, as the gunman coming from his left
side aimed and poured said shots into his body, inflicting two fatal wounds (Exhibit N)
that instantaneously caused his death.

Three witnesses positively identified the assailant as accused Hermogenes Magdueño:

(1) Elena Adion Lim, while sitted (sic) at the gate of her fence, about 20 to 30 meters
away from the house of Fiscal Dilig, saw the gunman coming from where she heard two
successive shots when he passed by her house, bringing a short gun in his right hand
and a clutch bag while hurriedly proceeding towards Liwanag Street. On October 30,
1980, she identified accused Magdueno as the man she saw that early morning of
October 15, 1980; (2) Ernesto Mari Y Gonzales, a security guard of the Malaria
Eradication Service, this City, while on board a tricycle, passing in front of the house of
Fiscal Dilig, on his way home, likewise heard the two gunshots coming from the
direction of Fiscal Dilig's house, prompting him to order the driver to stop. He described
the gunman as wearing a white polo shirt, blue pants and a hat, still holding the gun
pointed at Fiscal Dilig. When the gunman turned to his left side, Mari saw a scar on his
left temple below his left eyebrow. The man was still holding the gun in his right hand
while walking in a limping manner towards Mendoza Street. On the witness chamber,
he positively identified accused Hermogenes Magdueno as the gunman; (3) Cynthia
Canto a taxi dancer, residing at Jose Abad Santos, this City, while in front of the store of
Aling Charing near the house of Fiscal Dilig, waiting for a tricycle, saw the gunman
standing by for quite a time, then went nearer Fiscal Dilig who was then sitted (sic) on
the driver's seat of his jeep and fired two successive shots tothe latter, exiting towards
Mendoza Street. She could not be mistaken that accused Hermogenes Magdueno was
the gunman and when she came face to face with him at the invitation of the police
inPlaridel, Aborlan, Palawan, she readily Identified Magdueño as the killer.

* Disregard of rank, age, or sex; dwelling (Person or owner)

6.) People vs Diaz

7.) People vs Arizobal

[Aggravating Circumstances Treachery]People v. Clarito Arizobal (at large)G.R. Nos. 135051-52,

December 14, 2000Ponente: Per Curiam

Facts:On 12 August 1994, accused were charged in the RTC with Robbery in Band with Homicide for
robbing and slaying Laurencio Gimenez and his son. Laurencios wife testified: on March 24, 1994, they
were asleep in their house in Tuybo, Masbate. At 930PM, Laurencio roused her from sleep and told her
to open the door because there were persons outside the house. Since it was dark, she lit a lamp,
opened the door, and was confronted by 3 armed men pointing guns at her. She recognized the accused.
They entered the bedroom and forcibly opened the aparador and got money. They forced Laurencio to
come with them, and then Clementina heard a volley of shots. Her grandchild, as if sensing what befell
her grandfather, could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!" While the wife was in the process of
skinning a chicken for their supper, three (3) men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie facedown.
One of them pushed her to the ground while the others tied Francisco and Jimmy as they whipped the
latter with an armalite rifle. She noticed one of them wearing a mask, another a hat, and still another, a
bonnet.

Helpless, they consumed the food and cigarettes in the sari-sari store. They demanded P100K in
exchange for Jimmys life, but they did not have the money, then gunshots. On July 7, 1998, accused were
convicted of robbery with homicide, death.

Issue:Whether or not treachery attended the crime.

Held:But treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court. The accused stand charged with, tried
and convicted of robbery with homicide. This special complex crime is primarily classified in this
jurisdiction as a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide being merely an incident of
robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be
validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code.[18] This is
completely a reversal of the previousjurisprudence on the matter decided in a litany of cases before
People v. Bariquit.[19]

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, finding accused-appellant
ERLY LIGNES and accused CLARITO ARIZOBAL GUILTY of Robbery with Homicide and imposing upon both
of them the penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant ERLY LIGNES
and his co-accused CLARITO ARIZOBAL (who is still at large) are ordered in addition:(a) to pay jointly and
solidarily the legal heirs of Laurencio Gimenez and Jimmy GimenezP50,000.00for civil indemnity,
anotherP50,000.00 for moral damages, andP20,000.00for exemplary damages, for each set of heirs; and,
(b) to pay jointly and solidarily the legal heirs of Laurencio GimenezP8,000.00 and those of Jimmy
GimenezP1,000.00 representing their respective actual damages.

8.) People vs Daniel

43. PEOPLE VS. DANIEL

86 SCRA 511 (1978)

Nature: APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City.

Facts: On September 20, 1965, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, Margarita Paleng had just arrived
in the City from Tublay in a Dangwa bus. Because it was then raining and the bus was parked several
meters away from the bus station, she waited inside the bus . After about three minutes of waiting, the
accused came and started molesting her by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bagShe called the
attention of the bus driver and the conductor about the actuation of the accused, but it seemed that the
former were also afraid of him

"Despite the rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100 meters away. The accused
closely followed her (P. 4, id.). When the jeep started to go, the accused also rode and sat beside her

"When the jeep reached Guisad, she alighted on the road but she still had to negotiate a distance of ten
meters The accused also alighted and again he tried to carry her bag Although he was not allowed to
carry her bag, he was adamant in following her

"Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed
in and closed the door behind him When she entered her room, the accused went in, pulled a dagger
eight inches long and threatened her and then raped her.

Issue: W/N renting a bedspace in a boarding house constitute for all and purposes a dwelling.

Held: The judgment of conviction of Amado Daniel for the crime of rape as charged is affirmed.

Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for all
intents and purposes a "dwelling" as the term is used in Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code. It is not
necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee a
boarder or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.

9.) People vs Apduhan

Case Name:People of the Philippines vs Apolonio Apduhan Jr., et alCitation:G.R. No. L-19491, August 30,
1968 Procedural History:This is a review on the judgment convicting respondent to death and
indemnifying the heirs of the victim.

Facts: Respondent along with five other persons entered the house of the spouses Miano, shooting
Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton that killed both and took money amounting to Php 322.00
belonging to Geronimo Miano. Respondent pleaded not guilty initially and later after advise from
counsel Tirol, pleaded guilty. Judge Hipolito Alo informed respondent that the penalty imposed might be
death and respondent insisted on pleading guilty with the condition that he be sentenced to life
imprisonment instead of death. Respondent then desisted from his plea of guilt and having made it on
record, counsel Tirol conferred with him and later manifested that respondent will enter the plea of
guilty with the trial courts ascertainment that he was not forced into pleading guilty. The mitigating
circumstances alleged by respondent were 1) intoxication that was not corroborated; 2) voluntary plea of
guilty; and 3) Lack of intent to commit a grave so wrong that was withdrawn after prosecution withdrew
the fourth aggravating circumstance abuse of superior strength. The aggravating circumstances alleged
by the prosecution were 1) band; 2) dwelling; 3) nighttime; and 4) abuse of superior strength that was
withdrawn.

Issue:Whether or not respondents voluntary plea of guilty is spontaneous and insistent.

Ratio Decidendi:No. Respondents initial plea was not one of guilty and changed it with the condition that
he be sentenced to life imprisonment and not death since he will plead guilty. Respondent then desisted
from the plea of guilt and stated his plea of not guilty made in record, going back to plea of guilty only
after conferring with his counsel. The virtue of Judge Alo's efforts in ascertaining whether Apduhan
pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the significance and consequences of his act, recommends itself to
all trial judges who must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while justice
demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when
an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable
conviction. For failure to secure the required number of votes, the penalty of death cannot be legally
imposed. The penalty next lower in degree - reclusion perpetua - should consequently be imposed on
the accused.

Holding:The death sentence imposed upon Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. by the court a quo is reduced to
reclusion perpetua, the judgment a quo is affirmed in all other respects.

the breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are manifestly
lacking or non-existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-
powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which
certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation.

* Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

10.) People vs Mandolado

44. PEOPLE VS. MANDOLADO

123 SCRA 128 (1983)

Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato convicting Martin
Mandolado and Julian Ortillano of murder qualified with aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of confidence/obvious ungratefulness.

Facts: Sometime in October 1977, four draftees of third infantry Batallion were passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap
Cotabato City. Arriving at the terminal, they decided to drink ESQ rum where Martin after going inside the market and fired his
caliber machine gun. They then boarded a car and forced the driver to bring them to Midsayap Crossing and in the way,
Herminigildo got his knife and tried to attack the driver. After they alighted from the jeep, the accused started firing his gun and
hit the occupants of the jeep while Julian fired his armalite downwards in order to show that they were fighting with some MILF
rebels.

Issue: W/N abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness can be inferred from the mere fact that an
army draftee who was allowed on board a vehicle later on fired his gun at its occupants.

Held. Decision is modified as to penalty but affirmed in all other respects.

There is merit in appellants' contention that there could be no abuse of confidence as the evidence on
record showed the lack of confidence by the victims to the appellants, that this confidence was abused,
and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated the commission of the crimes. In order that abuse of
confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence
between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of
such a relationship to commit the crime." (People vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172). It is also
essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give
that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime; that such confidence was a
means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's
belief that the former would not abuse said confidence (People vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534). In the instant
case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence
might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. Consequently, no
confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.

Similarly, there could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the simple
reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the breach
thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are manifestly lacking or non-
existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-powered
firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is no
source of gratefulness or appreciation.

* Night time, inhabited places, or by band

11.) People vs Garcia

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO GARCIA Y CABARSE alias "TONY MANOK" and
REYNALDO ARVISO V REBELLEZA alias "RENE BISUGO

G.R. No. L-30449

October 31, 1979

FACTS:

The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the
prosecution, Mrs. Corazon DioquinoPaterno, sister of the deceased, ApolonioDioquino, Jr.

Before the incident which gave rise to this case, Corazon's husband informed her
that he saw Apolonio engaged in a drinking spree with his gang in front of an
establishment known as Bill's Place at M. de la Cruz Street. Pasay City. Corazon surmised
that her husband must have been painting the town red ("nag good time") in that same
place. Upon learning this information from her husband, Corazon obtained permission to
leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could fetch her brother. At that time, she had not been
aware that Apolonio was in Pasay City; she had been of the belief that he was with his
family in Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted him to escape the
untoward influence of his gang. In explaining the rationale for her noctural mission, she
employed in her sworn statement the following language: "DahilitongsiJunior ay
meronnakamingnabalitaannanaaakay ng barkadaniyasapaggawa ng hindimabuti."

On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos Street, Corazon saw her
brother fleeing a group of about seven persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia
and Reynaldo Arviso. She recognized the two accused because they wereformergangmates
of her brother; in fact, she knew them before the incident by their aliases of "Tony Manok"
and "Rene Bisugo, " respectively.

Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a
long sharp instrument. When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20
meters away, she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat him. Some beat
him with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the group scampered
away in different directions. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate
figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his long knife. Corazon was not able
to observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to witness the scene.

When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw that he was
bathed in a pool of his own blood.

ISSUE:

WON nocturnity (nighttime) is an aggravating circumstances?

HELD:

YES. The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said
that it was committed at night, which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according
to the New Civil Code, Article 13. Is this basis for finding that nocturnity is aggravating?
The Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when
the crime is committed in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may facilitate the
commission of the offense. There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating
circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it
facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is
aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. These two tests should be
applied in the alternative.

In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the
accused purposely sought the cover of night time. Next, we proceed and apply the
objective test, to determine whether nocturnity facilitated the killing of the victim. A group
of men were engaged in a drinking spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased
by seven others. The criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal
cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by
persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their Identity because of
the darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances
combine to pass the objective test, and the Court found that nocturnity is aggravating
because it facilitated the commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with the lust
to kill to follow their impulses with the false courage born out of the belief that they could
not be readily Identified.

12.) People vs Rodas

(PDF)

13.) People vs Damaso

PEOPLE VS DAMASO

[G.R. No. L-30116]

November 20, 1978

Facts: Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio Espejo are convicted of robbery
with double homicide.

On November 21, 1959, 9:00pm, Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law Victoriano de la Cruz heard their
dogs barking outside their house, and two armed men entered, pointed their weapons at them, tied up
Victoriano and covered him; they asked Donata for the whereabouts of her daughter Catalina Sabado.
Donata kept silent and blocked the door leading to her daughter's room but was promptly pushed aside.
She was ordered to open an "aparador" from which they took jewelry, clothing, documents, and cutting
instruments. The two men brought Catalina Sabado down from the house and then asked where they
could find the other daughter Susana Sabado who was then in her store nearby. Thereafter, Donata
heard the men opening the door to Susana's store, and Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked
him to go to the store to see if her daughters were there; both women could not be found. It was only
the following morning, in a sugar plantation, the women were found already dead with wounds in
several parts of their bodies.

Contention of the Accused: The accused contends that the crime was not attended by the aggravating
circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place.

Issue: Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance to aggravate criminal liability

Decision: AC of band exists whenever more than three armed malefactors act together in the
commission of an offense. It was found that Damaso, Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio were armed during
the commission of the crime. In this case, the presence of an armed band is to be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance (Art 14(6), RPC) inasmuch as the crime committed was that provided
for and penalized in Art 294(1) and not under Art 295, RPC.

Treachery is present if the victim is killed while bound in such a manner as to be deprived of the
opportunity to repel the attack or escape with any possibility of success. The fact that the bodies of
Catalina and Susana were found dead with their arms tied behind their backs as well as the admission of
Gregorio in his confession that he killed the sisters while their arms were held by Eugenio and Damaso
lead SC to believe the offense was done under treacherous circumstances.

The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of
the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in the
field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable
possibility for the victims to receive any assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of
the place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they
could have disposed of them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were found.

Decision is affirmed; penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period with three AC found by the trial
court, to wit: commission by a band, done with treachery, and in an uninhabited place. There is likewise
the additional aggravating circumstance that the robbery was committed in the dwelling of the victim.

* Recedivism

14.) People vs Baldera

PEOPLE v BALDERA

April 24, 1950 | REYES

Plaintiff: People of PH | Defendants: Pedro Baldera, Miguel Blay, Jose Dela Cruz, et al

TOPIC: Aggravating Circumstances  Personal Circumstances of the Offender  RECIDIVISM

FACTS

Pedro Baldera was found guilty of robbery in band with homicide and serious and less serious physical
injuries. He was sentenced to death.

Dec 23, 1947, 4am: A Casa Manila bus left Batangas, bound for Manila. It was held-up by a group of 5-6
men, one of them was Baldera.

Baldera, who was armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, followed by a hail of bullets from
different directions. After firing had ceased, Baldera got on the bus and took the passengers’ money,
threatening them with his gun. He got off the bus and ordered the bus to proceed.

The driver headed for the municipal building of San Juan and reported the incident to the authorities.
Wounded passengers were taken to the hospital. One passenger died the following day.

Shortly after the commission of the crime, Baldera was arrested in Batangas for theft of a radio. His
features matched descriptions by the passengers.

He made a written confession, admitting his participation in the crime as the one who, armed with a
pistol, boarded the bus and though intimidation, took the passengers’ money.

Later on, testifying in his own defense, he denied participation, claiming he spent the night in a house of
prostitution in Batangas, where he was employed by the prostitutes for drawing water

4 people were prosecuted and tried for the crime. Case was dismissed for 2 of the accused, but Baldera
and Miguel Blay were found guilty.

Baldera: death

Blay: life imprisonment

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO

W/N Baldera’s confession is admissible—YES

Baldera’s Confession was allegedly made for him to be given protection from his co-accused, and to use
him as a government witness. But he later on said the confession was taken through force and
intimidation. The latter was not proved.

But his confession still stands. Where one of several codefendants turns state's evidence on a promise
of immunity, but later retracts and fails to keep his part of the agreement, his confession made under
such promise may then be used against him.

W/N Baldera’s alibi stands—NO

His prostitute alibi cannot stand against the clear and positive testimony of one of the passengers,
Ponciano Villena, who has not shown to have any motive for falsely testifying against him.

W/N the following aggravating circumstances are present:

Crime committed is robbery in band and robbery was perpetrated by attacking a vehicle—YES

The fact that there were more than 3 armed men in the group that held up the bus appears in Baldera’s
own confession and is established by the uncontradicted testimony of one of the government witnesses.

But this is immaterial because in the crime of robbery with homicide it is not essential that the robbery
be in band, but it may count as an aggravation in the imposition of the penalty.

Even if it is not taken into account, there remains the other aggravating circumstance that the robbery
was perpetrated by attacking a vehicle, which is not offset by any mitigating circumstance.

W/N the lower court erred in holding against the accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of his
previous conviction for theft—YES

RECIDIVISM by reason of Baldera’s previous conviction for theft—NO

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime also punishable in the RPC. (Art 14 RPC)

No recidivism because Baldera’s crime of theft was committed on or about December 30, 1947 while the
offense now charged took place 7 days before that date.

SENTENCE REDUCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT

* Habitual Deliquency

15.) People vs Melendrez

* Evident Premidiation

16.) Us vs Manalinde
On the afternoon of January 19, 1909, Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was inflicted with a kris, a wound on his head coming from the
back by the accused Moro Manalinde. A Ricardo Doroteo heard a cry and he saw Igual lying on the ground.

Meanwhile Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, and attacked him with the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound
in the left shoulder, on account of which he fell to the ground. The aggressor had entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped
up in banana leaves, in the meantime escaped by running away from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman and the
Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the former died within an hour, the record not stating the result of the wound inflicted
on the Spaniard Juan Igual.

Manalinde was charged with Murder. When he was arrested he pleaded guilty and confessed that he had perpetrated the crime
herein mentioned, stating that his wife had died about one hundred days before and that he had come from his home in
Catumaldu by order of the Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who had directed him to go juramentado in Cotabato in order to kill
somebody, because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge against a lieutenant and a sergeant, the said datto further
stating that if he, Manalinde, was successful in the matter, he would give him a pretty woman on his return, but that in case he
was captured he was to say that he performed the killing by order of Maticayo, Datto Piang, Tambal and Inug.

Issues at Hand:

Are there aggravating circumstances in the crime?

Held:

Yes, promise of reward and premeditation are present, which in the present case are held to be generic, since the crime has
already been qualified as committed with the treachery, because the accused confessed that he voluntarily obeyed the order
given him by Datto Mupuck to gojuramentado and kill some one in the town of Cotabato, with the promise that if he escaped
punishment he would be rewarded with a pretty woman.

Promise of Reward - Upon complying with the order the accused undoubtedly acted of his own volition and with the
knowledge that he would inflict irreparable injury on some of his fellow-beings, depriving them of life without any reason
whatever, well knowing that he was about to commit a most serious deed which the laws in force in this country and the
constituted authorities could by no means permit. The accused knew perfectly well that he might be caught and punished in
the act of committing them.

Premeditation - the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith,
deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which,
under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with a weapon,
concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of taking the life of two
unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with whom he had never had any trouble; nor did there exist any reason
which, to a certain extent, might warrant his perverse deed.

No mitigating circumstances.