People vs. Comadre (Tan)
Antonio‟s Father Patricio and his wife Lolita
Topic: Complex Crime: Pro Reo
Crime: Murder with Multiple Attempted Muder
Penalty: Death
Issue: Should the act of appellant in throwing a hand grenade and
killing multiple victims be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty? YES.
Facts:
1. Aug 6, 1995 (7:00pm): the victims have drinking spree on the
terrace of the House of Jaime Agbanlog in Lupao, Nueva
Ecija. Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the terrace
listening to the conversation of the companions of his son.
2. As the drinking session went on, the victim saw the
respondents stopped in front of their house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an object,
apparently a hand grenade, w/c fell on the roof of the terrace.
The accused immediately fled by scaling the fence of a nearby
school.
3. The grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house.
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat
and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped
unconscious on the floor. they were all rushed to the hospital
however, Robert Agbanlog died before reaching the same.
4. Expert findings by police and medico-legal found that the
projectile was an MK2 hand grenade and upon autopsy, the
wounds of Robert were consistent with that to be caused by a
grenade blast.
5. [RESPONDENTS‟ CONTENTIONS]
a. Antonio Comadre claimed he was watching tv at home
with his family during the incident
b. George Comadre claimed he was home and that he
was in good terms with the victims
c. Danilo Comadre claimed that he hasn‟t even seen the
two above in a long time and that he was in good terms
with the victims
d.
corroborated his claim
6. 20 days after the incident, the victims went to the police station
and narrated what happened, positively identifying Antonio
Comadre together with Danilo Lozano and George Comadre
7. RTC: held that the undisputed facts show that when Antonio
threw the grenade, the other two, erely looked on without
uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act
to assist him. However, it held that the mere presence of the
two provided encouragement and a sense of security to
Antonio Thus providing the existence of conspiracy. It found
them guilty of Murder w/ Multiple Frustrated Murder.
Ordered for the death penalty and to pay indemnity and moral
damages.
Ratio:
RPC, Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means of committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
1. YES. The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the
RPC, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to
favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of
the crimes committed. The rationale being that the accused
who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are
committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions.
2. The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade
may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate
and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses
should be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was
impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser
degree of perversity.
 3. Under the aforecited article, when a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period irrespective of the presence of modifying
circumstances, including the generic aggravating circumstance
of treachery in this case. Applying this, the maximum penalty
for the most serious crime (murder) is death. The trial court,
therefore, correctly imposed the death penalty.
4. 3 SC Justices maintain that R.A. 7659 is unconstitutional as it
prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the
majority that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in this
case.
5. PREVIOUS TOPIC: Mere presence in the scene doesn‟t
constitute anvenuragment or approval of a felony. Evidence
shows that the two didn‟t have any participation in the
commission of the crime and must therefore be set free. Their
mere presence and their close relationship with Antonio are
insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they
performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed

decision is AFFIRMED insofar as appellant Antonio Comadre is
convicted of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted
Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH...
Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are ACQUITTED
for lack of evidence to establish a conspiracy…
In accordance with Section 25 of RA 7659 amending Article 83 of the
RPC, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be
forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of
pardoning power. SO ORDERED.
People vs. Sarcia
Topic: Where the offender is below 18 years old
Crime: Rape
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua
Doctrine: In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance
of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the penalty of Sarcia could be lowered by one
degree because of his minority? YES (From death to reclusion
perpetua)
Facts:
1. AAA, a five-year old girl, together with her cousin and two
other playmates, were playing the yard of Saling Crisologo
near a mango tree
2. Suddenly, Richard Sarcia, (presumed 18 years old because
lack of the exact date of rape committed) appeared and invited
AAA to go with him in the backyard of Crisologo‟s house.
(Where she followed him)
3. When they arrived, Sarcia removed the short‟s and underwear
of AAA; also removed his trousers and brief
4. He ordered AAA to lie down on her back
5. Then, he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into AAA‟s
private organ. Appellant made an up- and-down movement
("Nagdapadapa tabi"), AAA felt severe pain and exclaimed
“Aray”.
6. However, AAA‟s cousin saw what had happened and
instinctively rushed to the house of AAA‟s mother and told her
aunt what she had seen. But she did not mind it because they
were still young to know such matters.
7. When Sarcia was done, he ordered AAA to put on her clothes
and then left.
8. When AAA went back to her house she did not tell her mother
because she feared she might get slapped.
9. But when her mother washed her body she felt a grating
sensation in her vagina,
10. Sarcia‟s conviction was then affirmed upon appeal, crediting
AAA‟s testimony and her cousin‟s as well, despite certain
inconsistencies
a. Testimony
i. Cousin of AAA - she and AAA were playing;
while raped occured AAA shouted; after the
incident she saw AAA crying; other people were
playing
ii. AAA - she was not doing anything at that time;
she merely said “aray”; after she wore her
clothes she invited her cousin to their house;
they were only four of them.
b. Confused on the date and time of the offense
committed
c. Four-year delay in the filing of the case
d. Also, to help in the case of Salvacion Bobier get a
conviction in a murder case
*However, it does not affect the outcome of the case
RTC Ruling:
Guilty of rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
CA Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. The
accused, Richard Sarcia y Olivera, is ordered to suffer the penalty of
DEATH,
SC Ruling: YES. The penalty imposed on Sarcia can be lowered
to one degree from death to reclusion perpetua
Under RA. 7659, penalty of death shall be imposed when the
victim of rape is a child below seven years old. In this case, AAA, was
5 years old at the time of the commission of the offense - proved by
her birth certificate. Hence, death penalty should be imposed.
However, would modify the penalty imposed by the CA. Since
prosecution was unable to prove the exact date and time when the
rape was committed, it is uncertain that the crime of rape was
committed on or after he reached 18 years old. In assessing the
attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts
should be resolved in favor of the accused.

Under Art. 68 RPC, when the offender is a minor under 18

years old, penalty next lower than that prescribed shall be imposed
but in the proper period. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua.

Regarding suspension of sentence:

The court also looked into Sec. 38 of RA 9344, which provides
for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in convict with the
law, even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at the time
he/she is found guilty of the offense charged. Although, P.D. No. 603
and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, state that the benefit of suspended
sentence would not apply to a child in conflict with the law, if he/she
has been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment. Since RA 9344 did not state a minor
who was convicted of a capital punishment, thus the Court cannot
distinguish. (when the law does not distinguish, the court cannot
distinguish)

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS : (1) the penalty of death imposed on accused-
appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua. However, the case shall
be REMANDED to the court a quo for appropriate disposition in
accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.
People vs. Gambao
Topic: Where the offender is below 18 years old; Accomplice in
Kidnapping with Ransom
Crime: Kidnapping for Ransom
Penalty: Accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIE
KARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y SULA,
RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN
MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL and NORA
EVAD y MULOK are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole
Accused-appellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON A.K.A. LARINA
PERPENIAN is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplice
in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision
Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision
Mayor, as maximum
Doctrine: Considering that Perpenian acted with discernment when
she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, her
minority should be appreciated not as an exempting circumstance, but
as a privileged mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code. Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law shall still be
applied even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Unfortunately, at the
present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer benefit from the aforesaid
provision, because under Article 40 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension
of sentence can be availed of only until the child in conflict with the
law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. This leaves
the Court with no choice but to pronounce judgement.
Issue: Whether or not Perpenian be convicted as an accomplice from
the said crime of Kidnapping for Ransom? And if yes is she entitled to
a mitigating circumstance since she was 17 years old during the
commission of the crime? Yes, she will be convicted as an accomplice
and also entitled to a special mitigating circumstance of minority.
Facts:
1.Lucia chan was a fish dealer and has suppliers delivering the fish
she sells from the province. One the afternoon two persons, one of
whom was identified as Theng Dilangalen went to her residence,
inquiring about a passport which was allegedly misplaced inside one
of the fish shipments about to be sent to her. Not being able to locate
it, they left.
2.During the following day, Dilangalen was accompanied by an
unidentified person returned to the house of Chan and was met the
houseboy. Suddenly, the unidentified person pointed a gun to Levy
(Chan‟s son) and their house companions. After which, Chan was
dragged to board a “Tamaraw FX” van. Levy, then proceeded to the
police headquarter.
3.After travelling for two house, Chan was then transported to a house
and was ordered to lie down in a room, which was guarded by the
Ronas, Evad, Dukilman, and Macalinbol. Chan was then threatened
that she will be killed unless a ransom of 20M was paid.
4.Days passed, Chan was then transported to a new house
(RESORT); she was then ordered to enter a room, which was
guarded by Macalinbol, Udal, and Gambao. In the evening, a woman
appeared in the said resort, later identified as Perpenian. Chan was
then instructed to talk to her son to prepare the payment for release.
The agreed amount was 400,000 to be delivered at the “Chowking”
restaurant at Buendia.
5.Ouano and Mancao (inspectors), were assigned to take and
investigate the case. They were later informed that the kidnappers
demanded a ransom. The next day, the inspectors saw a red taxi cab,
which came from the victim‟s residence. Thus, being suspicious of the
said vehicle, the inspectors followed the red cab and saw it enter
Elizabeth Resort in Pansol, Laguna. They believe that Chan was kept
in the resort.
6.After getting information about the exchange of 400,000 for lucia‟s
freedom, they positioned themselves within the vicinity of the said
restaurant. There, after the exchange, they apprehended the persons
that facilitated the transaction and also recovered the ransom money.
7.Thereafter, they went to the resort where they rescued the victim,
Lucia Chan. They apprehended 7 of her abductors namely
Dilangalen, Udal, Macalindol, Mandao, Perpenian, Evad, and Ronas.
8.They changed their plea of guilt from not guilty to guilty hence, they
were charged and convicted for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
Hence, in their petition in the SC, they argue that they were not
properly informed of the consequences of their change of plea and
that conspiracy was not properly proven in the case at bar
RTC ruling: Convicted the 7 of them for the crime of kidnapping for
ransom and was sentenced with the supreme penalty of death.
CA ruling: Affirmed the conviction of the 7 appellants but modified the
penalty of Perpenian to relcusion perpetua because she was 17 years
old when the crime was committed.
SC ruling:
The Court affirmed the conviction of the 6 appellants as co
principals of the said crime and modified Perpenian criminal liability as
only as accomplice. The Court convicted the 6 appellants in the basis
that conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. This Court has
held before that to be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or
need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in
the execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of
one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals. Moreover, Chan positively identified the
appellants.
The testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common
purpose of the accused-appellants and how they were all united in its
execution from beginning to end. There were testimonies proving that
(1) before the incident, two of the accused- appellants kept coming
back to the victim‟s house; (2) during the kidnapping, accused-
appellants changed shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the accused
appellants were those present when the ransom money was
recovered and when the rescue operation was conducted.
The Court stated that Perpenian be convicted as an
accomplice stating that her defense of thinking that there was
swimming party was the reason of her presence is not tenable. It has
been held before that being present and giving moral support when a
crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an
accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted that
Perpenian‟s presence and company were not indispensable and
essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she
is only liable as an accomplice.
Laslty, Considering that Perpenian acted with discernment
when she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the
offense, her minority should be appreciated not as an exempting
circumstance, but as a privileged mitigating circumstance pursuant to
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 38 of R.A. No.
9344, the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law
shall still be applied even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of
age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Unfortunately, at the present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer
benefit from the aforesaid provision, because under Article 40 of R.A.
No. 9344, the suspension of sentence can be availed of only until the
child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
(21) years. This leaves the Court with no choice but to pronounce
judgement. the penalty imposed by law on accomplices in the
commission of consummated kidnapping for ransom is Reclusion
Temporal, the penalty one degree lower than what the principals
would bear (Reclusion Perpetua). Applying Article 68 of the Revised
Penal Code, the imposable penalty should then be adjusted to the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law for accomplices. This
Court, therefore, holds that as to Perpenian, the penalty of Prision
Mayor, the penalty lower than that prescribed by law (Reclusion
Temporal), should be imposed. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum penalty, which is one degree lower than the
maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of Prision
Correccional; and the maximum penalty shall be within the minimum
period of Prision Mayor, absent any aggravating circumstance and
there being one mitigating circumstance.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, the 28 June 2005 Decision of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00863 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL,
EDDIE KARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y
SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING,
JAMAN MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL and
NORA EVAD y MULOK are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole.
Accused-appellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON A.K.A. LARINA
PERPENIAN is found guilty beyond reasonable CD Technologies
Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com doubt as accomplice in the crime of
kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as
maximum. Accusedappellants are ordered to indemnify the victim in
the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages apportioned in the
following manner: the principals to the crime shall jointly and severally
pay the victim the total amount of P288,000.00 while the accomplice
shall pay the victim P12,000.00, subject to Article 110 of the Revised
Penal Code on several and subsidiary liability.
Colinares v People
Topic: Effects of Probation Law; Probation on Appeal
Doctrine: The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires
that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can
avail himself of probation. This requirement “outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the result of his
appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the
moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence
inevitable, he now applies for probation as an „escape hatch‟ thus
rendering nugatory the appellate court‟s affirmance of his conviction.”
Crime: Attempted Homicide
Penalty: Four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years
and four months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay
Rufino P. Buena the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages
Issue: Whether or not Arnel is entitled to probation given that he was
convicted for a lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty
from his appeal? YES
Facts:
1. Rufino (victim) testified that during the evening, he and Jesus
went out to buy cigarettes at a nearby store.
2. Jesus excused himself to take a piss. Suddenly, Colinares
(accused) then appeared and hit Rufino with a large piece of
stone (15.5 inches in diameter) which resulted the latter to be
unconscious. Another testimony by Ananias also corroborated
the story.
3. Ananias Jallores (Ananias) testified that he was walking home
when he saw Rufino lying by the roadside. Ananias tried to
help but someone struck him with something hard on the right
temple, knocking him out. He later learned that Arnel had hit
him.
4. Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole
incident since he happened to be smoking outside his house.
He sought the help of a barangay tanod and they brought
Rufino to the hospital.
5. Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate showing
that Rufino suffered two lacerated wounds on the forehead,
along the hairline area. The doctor testified that these injuries
were serious and potentially fatal but Rufino chose to go home
after initial treatment.
6. Colinares contends that he acted merely in self defense.
However the Court convicted him of the following: (please
refer to RTC and CA Ruling)
RTC Ruling: Frustrated Homicide; prision correcional ( 2 years and 4
months) to prision mayor ( 6 years and 1 day); not entitled to
probation (due to imprisonment must not exceed 6 years)
CA Ruling: Frustrated Homicide; prision correcional ( 2 years and 4
months) to prision mayor ( 6 years and 1 day); not entitled to
probation (due to imprisonment must not exceed 6 years)
SC Ruling: The Court modified the conviction to attempted homicide.
Likewise, the Court stated that the accused was entitled to probation
because his amended penalty did not exceed the limit. The conviction
was modified from frustrated to attempted because the evidence
presented stated that the wound in the head was not fatal enough to
cause death. Likewise, the following were considered for the
modification: 1.) After treatment he was discharged 2.) the healing
period was only 7 to 8 days 3.) the testimony of the doctor stating the
it is not fatal. The contention of self defense was not appreciated
because there was no witness corroborating the testimony of the
accused stating that the victim and his companions attacked him first.
On probation, the Court allowed him to apply for probation on
the following grounds: 1.) the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser
crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the
penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months
of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would
be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of
the case to the RTC. 2.) That although probation may not be used if
an appeal was made, he is entitled to it because had the RTC did not
err imposing the proper penalty, he will be entitled to probation. 3.)
The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to
probation through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy of
probation is one of liberality towards the accused. 4.) Arnel raised the
issue of correctness of the penalty imposed on him. He claimed that
the evidence at best warranted his conviction only for attempted, not
frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a probationable penalty. In
a way, therefore, Arnel sought from the beginning to bring down the
penalty to the level where the law would allow him to apply for
probation. 5.) The ruling in Francisco was not applicable in the case at
bar because this ruling, the accused was entitled to parole when he
appealed (thus, it prompted that the accused waive. his right for
probation when he appealed) unlike Colinares who wasn‟t eligible for
probation in his first conviction.
1. Probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender; the
Probation Law is not a penal law for it to be liberally construed
to favor the accused.
2. Originally, P.D. No. 968 allowed the filing of an application for
probation even if an appeal had been perfected by the
convicted offender under Section 4; With the subsequent
amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 by P.D. No. 1990, the
application for probation is no longer allowed if the accused
has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
3. Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as
mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable
about it.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition,
MODIFIES the Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR 29639, FINDS petitioner Arnel Colinares GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide, and SENTENCES
him to suffer an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision
correccional, as maximum, and to pay Rufino P. Buena the amount of
P20,000.00 as moral damages, without prejudice to petitioner
applying for probation within 15 days from notice that the record of the
case has been remanded for execution to the Regional Trial Court of
San Jose, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213. SO ORDERED.

Dissenting Opinions:

Peralta, J: