PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYNALDO BARRIGA G.R. NO.178545 September 29, 2008 Facts: On March 10, 1995, appellant Reynaldo Barriga and an old man went to see Helen, the commonlaw wife and fiancee of the victim Eduardo Villabrille, at her house, seemingly to inquire about a lot for sale owned by a certain Miss Rosal. After talking with Miss Rosal, appellant asked Helen for the location of Eduardo's house, to which she answered the first house with color yellow. On March 20, 1995, a witness saw appellant going over the fence of her house and peeping through the jalousie window to spy on Eduardo, who was then watching television in her house. On March 23, 1995, Eduardo, riding on his bicycle, proceeded to his mother's house to pasture his cows and water his newly planted mangoes. After a while, Helen heard four successive gunshots coming from the direction of the house of Eduardo's uncle. She hurriedly went out and saw Eduardo being chased by three persons armed with short firearms. Helen recognized one of the pursuers as Leo Barriga (Leo), the brother of appellant, for they used to play together in his house during their school days. She saw Eduardo jump over a fence and fall on the ground. Then Leo approached Eduardo, poked a gun at his head, and fired. She heard Leo tell his companions that Eduardo was already dead. Appellant picked up the three assailants in his motorcycle. Eduardo died the next day. The trial court found appellant guilty of the crime of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court, however, held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not clearly established. But it found that evident premeditation attended the killing of Eduardo. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and with the aid of armed men attended the commission of the crime. Held: The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not clearly established since none of the witnesses saw how the shooting was started. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed. Abuse of superior strength cannot likewise be appreciated for it was not alleged in the the barangay captain surrendered accused-appellant to the authorities. the victim Eduardo Ansuli and three other persons were playing mahjong at the wake of a certain Rosalina Petalpo. Accused-appellant claimed that the victim called him patay gutom at pulubi and boxed him at the right shoulder. approximately 50 meters from the location of the wake. the qualifying circumstance of killing with the aid of armed men could not be absorbed in treachery. watching the game. The victim allegedly verbally abused him. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. about three meters from the mahjong table. he stabbed the victim with his fan knife then ran to the house of the barangay captain. hitting the latter on the right breast.m. Since treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. the physical size and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. However.R. In other words. Ansuli's dead body was found by the side of the road. both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of the commission of the crime with the aid of armed men. Thus. of the following day. 1997. Barangay tanods were also present at the wake. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. While Ansuli was picking a mahjong tile. the victim boxed him three times. Under paragraph 1. He alleged that the victim suspected him of stealing PhP 20 and because of that. gender.information. 182548 October 17. it cannot qualify the killing of Eduardo. Judgment is affirmed with modifications. Around 6:00 a. Even if alleged. Accused-appellant claimed killing Ansuli in self-defense. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder. At the table. Issue: . There is no proof that assailants utilized any notorious inequality to their advantage. which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. 2008 Facts: On October 15. accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Ansuli with a Swiss-type knife. The information alleged that the accused were armed with short firearms. usually translating into the age. Accused-appellant thereafter fled towards the residence of the barangay captain while Ansuli ran to his house. NO. This aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics. NOEL CUASAY G. In the same morning. There is ample evidence on record establishing the presence of this circumstance. the aid of armed men qualifies a killing to murder. accused-appellant Noel Cuasay and a certain Johnson Suarez were seated at the right side of Ansuli. .Whether accused-appellant should be acquitted based on self-defense. gained entry to the subdivision where the victims." Dela Cruz dropped the knife and ran towards the garage. during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. Atty. The CA affirmed the decision with modifcation. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE G. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance. Pelagio survived the stabbing after receiving prompt medical attention. 1999. The trial court found appellant guilty of murder and frustrated murder. Held: Accused-appellant failed to prove the requisites of self-defense. tama na. Juliana rushed to her husband's rescue and begged the appellant. tama na. tama na. and (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. evident premeditation and dwelling attended the commission of the crimes. Juliana died as a result of the injuries she suffered. He failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. There was no evidence of unlawful aggression or any act on the part of the victim that could have caused accused-appellant to act with passion or obfuscation. Pelagio escorted dela Cruz out toward the garage gate. dela Cruz suddenly reappeared and stabbed her repeatedly at the back with a letter opener. NO. appellant. 2007 Facts: In the morning of November 20. However. Leoson dela Cruz.D. 172697 June 7. Judgment is affirmed with modification. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Upon reaching the house of Pelagio. the latter suddenly stabbed him in the back and kept on stabbing him until he lost his balance. lived by presenting to the guard-on-duty a fake I. appellant told Rebecca.R. Pelagio Ricalde and his wife Juliana. Accused-appellant's alternative claim of passion or obfuscation likewise deserves no credit. Issue: Whether or not treachery. or convicted for homicide only because of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation that resulted in incomplete self-defense. After a brief conversation. that her father had told him to go there. As Juliana was attending to her husband. the following elements must be present: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind. Pelagio's daughter. "Leo. The Court stresses the importance of the requirement in evident premeditation of sufficiency of time between the criminal act and the resolution to carry out the criminal intent. She fought back but to no avail. Finally. Appellant's greater perversity was revealed when he deliberately entered the victims' domicile. The same cannot be said on the assault on Juliana. she was by her fallen husband when appellant reappeared with a letter opener. The attack on her was instantaneous. To prove evident premeditation. then dragged her outside. At this point. As to the presence of evident premeditation. After a while. . an interval long enough for the conscience and better judgment to overcome the evil desire and scheme. Pelagio did not have the slightest idea he was going to be stabbed and had no chance to defend himself. The garage. Thereafter.R. where the incidents took place. and Juliana was not ready to fight back thinking appellant had left. 173858 July 17. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed. affording such opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what appellant had planned to do. Inside the barn. (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to such determination. ERNESTO GARCES vs. Ernesto Garces. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his act. the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. Pelagio was talking with appellant on the way out. at the pretext of soliciting help from its owners. In Juliana's case. covered AAAs mouth. Pacursa started kissing AAA. and four of his coaccused suddenly appeared and approached her. giving them no opportunity to defend themselves. At the time of the attack. He also threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood guard outside.Held: Treachery is present because the suddenness of appellant's attack on the victims ensured the commission of the crimes. Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. NO. they heard people shouting and calling the name of AAA. petitioner Ernesto Garces entered the barn. dwelling aggravated the commission of the crimes. Judgment is affirmed. is undoubtedly an integral part of the victims residence. 2007 Facts: AAA was on her way to the chapel when the petitioner. only the attack on Pelagio was evidently premeditated. was seen by a witness being chased by an unidentified person (John Doe) along 4th Avenue East. then pulled out a knife and likewise stabbed the victim. The appellant continued to box the victim until John Doe came. AAA could not answer because she was in a state of shock. There. the appellant held the victim's left hand and led him to the other side of the road. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.Upon reaching the house of Florentino Garces. Caloocan City. Porpirio took a piece of wood and hit the victim on the head. The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot likewise be appreciated in the absence of evidence that the accused actually sought an isolated place to better execute their purpose. Held: Nocturnity is aggravating when it is deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure his unmolested escape. Jr. Petition denied. Rosendo Pacursa denied that he raped the victim. After a while. Dante Nueva. the three accused escaped. 173248 November 3. and Porpirio Maribuhok who were then standing near the corner of 4th Avenue. The victim passed in front of the appellant. other than the fact that the crime was committed at night. who was then at the victim's front. The trial court found Pacursa guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape while petitioner Garces was found guilty as an accessory to the crime. 2000. In the instant case.. 2008 Facts: In the evening of December 29.R. she was able to recount the incident. . At that point. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification. while his co-accused presented alibis as their defense. the victim. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO G. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of night-time and uninhabited place attended the commission of the crime. John Doe immediately stabbed the victim at the back. AAA's relatives found her crying and her hair disheveled. They brought her home. The appellant. Virgilio Revollido. Shortly thereafter. NO. petitioner released AAA. When asked what happened. Afterwards. there is no other evidence that the peculiar advantage of nighttime was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused. The other co-accused were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The records do not show that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance. Jose Cuizon. To constitute treachery. two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means. only the appellant was apprehended. and (2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means. Hinoba-an. ET AL. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect on the consequences of his act. in Sitio Calapayan. Of the three accused. 2008 Facts: On October 20. his son Ronilo Cuizon. and taking advantage of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. size and strength of the parties. NO. Judgment is affirmed with modifications.The victim died subsequently. The circumstances surrounding the murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.R. at around 6:00 p. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age. (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party.m. the others remained at large. Barangay San Rafael. Evident premeditation was not proven. and his brother Raymundo Cuizon were . For evident premeditation to be appreciated. It is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor so that the superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this superiority in committing the crime. Held: A review of the evidence points to the conclusion that no treachery existed. Negros Occidental. 1989. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery.. Abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim. which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder. the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. CESARIO OSIANAS. method or manner of execution. Treachery is not presumed. or force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. G. To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force. evident premeditation. 182548 September 30. (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination.sleeping in the house of Jose's daughter. Suddenly. knives. who was also asleep with her two children. ET AL. Ronilo and Raymundo were found in Sitio Sangke. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. ARMANDO RODAS. cannot be appreciated in the case at bar. The other qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information. Teresita Cuizon-Cuerpo. and double-bladed weapons. It was not shown that the accused-appellants meditated and reflected upon their decision to kill the victim. The following elements must be established in order that evident premeditation may be appreciated: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime. Ronilo and Raymundo and brought them out of the house allegedly for questioning. together with the other seven accused who were all armed with improvised shotguns. The next day. notorious and sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery. around two kilometers away from Barangay Hinoba-an. hog-tied the hands of Jose. The premeditation to kill must be plain. this Court has held that such is already absorbed in treachery. They barged in. Judgment is affirmed with modification. of the crime of murder. and therefore cannot be separately considered. 1989. when found. Cesario Osianas. the persons knocking at the door said they were members of the New Peoples Army and that they will burn the house down if the door was not opened. When asked. the dead bodies of Jose. there was a loud knocking on the door and shouts calling for Jose to rise and come out. Jose opened the door. et al. Talacagay. Teresita then saw accused-appellants. The trial court convicted the accused-appellants. As regards the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications. evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Held: There is no question that the victims bodies. had their hands still tied shows without doubt that they were killed when they were tied. . evident premeditation. the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present. short firearms. so that. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. October 21. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Held: For evident premeditation to be appreciated. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime. It is evident that the accused took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense. and Jose Rodas. Jose Rodas. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing.. Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas prevented them by pointing a gun at them. The victim was unarmed while the accused were armed with a hunting knife. Sr. to help his brother. Jr. NO. nocturnity and abuse of superior strength attended the killing. a bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing. Charlito Rodas. or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. Thereafter.R. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered against appellants. They saw Charlito Rodas. (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination. Jose Rodas. Sr. Issue: Whether evident premeditation. in the harvesting of the latter's corn. Danilo Asenda. the prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements. 1996. They stopped and hung out near the fence to watch the affair. surround Titing Asenda. stabbed Titing at the back.G. Suddenly. chako and bolo. Zamboanga del Norte. 75881 August 28. Denoyan. On the same day. This aggravating . Jr. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape. Armando Rodas. The lower court convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of murder. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscurity afforded by. without a word. and not merely the chronological onset of. 2007 Facts: On August 9. which the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. In the case at bar. armed with a hunting knife. There was glaring disparity of strength between the victim and the four accused. a benefit dance at Milaub was being held. nighttime. handed to Jose Rodas. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. at around 8:00 in the evening. the victim Titing Asenda was at Milaub. Titing died instantly from his injuries. Among those roaming in the vicinity of the dance hall were Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime. Titing Asenda was standing near them. affording the . After the shooting. Nestor Estacio. was allegedly standing beside the post near a store across the street. more gunshots were heard. cannot be separately appreciated because it is absorbed in treachery. NO.R. appellant jumped into a motorcycle and escaped. On August 5. it was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. thus precluding surprises during trial. It is a well-entrenched rule that treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. RENE ROSAS G. After the victim fell on the ground. Before he could drive off. but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. Not only was treachery sufficiently alleged. Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. Rene Rosas. appellant was arrested. 1998. 177825 October 24. shot the latter with a pistol at close range.circumstance. It is not the use of the words qualifying or qualified by that raises a crime to a higher category. The victim stopped in front of the Salcedo Newsstand to buy a newspaper without switching off his motorcycles engine. which gunshots were fired at the victim to make sure that he was dead. though. employing means. the victim. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Judgment is affirmed with modification. Thereafter. arrived alone on board his motorcycle. Issue: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated when it is not alleged with specificity in the Information. done in a swift and unexpected attack. Held: Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense. It is sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense. 2008 Facts: On September 15. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of murder. 1995. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. appellant. who was coming from the left side behind the victim. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. appellant. by boxing her on the head and kicking her several times on the different parts of her body. which could have resulted to massive brain edema and his subsequent death. 2007 Facts: In the morning of January 21. Reynaldo Villanueva. Jr. aged 8. suffered a broken mouth and was confined at the Baguio General Hospital (BGH) for four days. aged 5 and 2.hapless. Jr. if it was shown that he was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. then 31 years old. Angelica died of massive brain edema. appellant was charged with murder for the death of Angelica.R. Appellant also mauled his nephews Rexie Villanueva and Enrique Villanueva. frustrated murder for the serious injuries suffered by Rexie. Appellant's recollection of the events prior to the crimes and his emotions afterwards indicate that he was sane before. Jr. Rexie sustained injuries. killed his niece Angelica Villanueva. Held: The defense failed to prove that appellant was completely deprived of intelligence in committing the dastardly acts. He claimed that he did not know that he killed his niece Angelica and that he mauled his nephews Rexie and Enrique. The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. and after the commission of the crimes. Judgment is affirmed. paranoid. There is no dispute that appellant has a history of . and attempted murder for the injuries inflicted on Enrique. Proof of the existence of some abnormalities in the mental faculties will not exempt the accused from culpability. PEOPLE vs. respectively. Enrique. Consequently. cerebral contusion. 172697 September 25. NO.. REYNALDO VILLANUEVA Y MARQUEZ G. which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Jr. and attempted murder. frustrated murder. subdural hemorrhage due to mauling. were it not for the medical intervention. 2000. during. Issue: Whether appellant should be acquitted on the ground of insanity. episodic with interepisode residual symptoms characterized by intermittent episodes of psychotic signs and symptoms. A doctor testified that appellant is suffering from a mental disorder classified as schizophrenia. Appellant pleaded insanity. The CA correctly appreciated appellant's mental disorder as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. appellant. mental illness. Episodic with Interepisode Residual Symptoms which began in 1985 and was characterized by intermittent episodes of psychotic signs and symptoms since then until appellant's examination on June 21. 2000. He was diagnosed to be suffering from Schizophrenia. Paranoid. . Such illness diminished the exercise of appellant's will power without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. Judgment affirmed with modifications.
Comments
Report "Criminal Law Case Digests (Aggravating Circumstances)"