G.R. No. 66645 171 SCRA 458 & 466 March 29, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RUBEN BACHO and RUBEN PADOLLA, RAYMUNDO HORCA and MUNDO, EDUARDO PARAGATO and DAYDO, and ROGELIO MUNCADA and NGOLA defendants: RUBEN BACHO and RUBEN PADOLLA and EDUARDO PARAGATO and DAYDO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS: On April 16, 1981 at around 11:30pm. In the municipality of Catarman,

Northern Samar, Phil. A man named Felipe Openiano, Jr., was attacked and inflicted wounds that caused his death by the alleged criminals namely: Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, Eduardo Paragato and Rogelio Muncada. The accused, who were all workers in the warehouse of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. in Catarman, Northern Samar, had banded up on the deceased Felipe Openiano, Jr. and took turns in beating him up, and fled together towards the other side of a parked Pepsi Cola truck

Ruben Bacho alias Ruben Padolla, Raymundo Horca alias Mundo, Eduardo Paragato alias Daydo and Rogelio Muncada alias Ngola were charged with the crime of Murder.The arraignment of Rogelio Muncada was dismissed because of the fact that he was a deaf-mute and mentally ill.

ISSUES:Whether it is justifiable to say that the accused committed the murder with

the attendant qualifying circumstances of Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength with the penalty of death.

HELD:The court found out that the charged against the accused which is the murder

committed with the attendant of qualifying circumstances of Treachery not applicable. It has been ruled that alevosia cannot be appreciated against the accused where the crime was the result of a casual encounter and the accused had no time to reflect on the method of executing the crime.

Alevosia cannot also be appreciated where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the deceased began and developed. 

WHEREFORE, this court finds the accused-appellants, Ruben Bacho and Ruben Paragato are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to

1

pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Felipe Openiano, Jr. in the amount of P 30,000.00. With proportionate costs against the appellants.SO ORDERED.

2

G.R. No. L-28104 92 SCRA 89 July 30, 1979

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PEDRO MIL, defendant-appellant.Estanislao A. Fernandez (Counsel de Oficio) for appellant.Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Teodulo R. Diño for appellee.

FACTS: On December 22, 1966, the deceased Augusto Arteche was boxed by the

accused Pedro Mil at the Arco Iris, a nightspot in Catbalogan, Samar, where the said Augusto Arteche worked as a piano player, causing physical injuries to Augusto Arteche. As a result, Pedro Mil was charged with the crime of less serious physical injuries before the Municipal Court of Catbalogan, Samar.

Atty. Filomeno Arteche, Jr., wrote a letter to Augusto Arteche to have an amicable settlement with Pedro Mil, the letter was given to Sgt. Pedro Arcteche, but the letter was not given to Augusto Arteche.

On February 12, 1967, at six o’clock while Augusto Arteche, Salvador Alba, and some friends were drinking at the Amba's Refreshment Parlor, Pedro Mil and Sgt. and Mrs Anicio Laparra entered the store and occupied a table near a counter. By then Augusto Arteche informed Pablo de los Reyes and Fidel Tan of the presence of Pedro Mil and company. Sgt. Laparra invited Augusto Arteche to their table and offered him a drink. Suddenly, Pedro Mil shouted at Augusto Arteche: "Let's have a fight;" "Kung ganoon kailangan kang mamatay," immediately drawing a .45 cal. pistol tucked under his belt. Augusto Arteche stood up, pleading: "Huwag huwag." at the same time raising his hands. Nevertheless, Pedro Mil shot him, causing him to fall face downward. Upon seeing Alba he also shot him.

After escaping Pedro Mil rode a vehicle and rush towards Atty. Bohol but when he asked a passerby the latter doesn’t know where he went onwards and saw Sgt. Pedro Arteche and his wife were seated by the window of their house at Barrio Maulong, Catbalogan, Samar. Thereupon, Pedro Mil shot Pedro Arteche. When Trinidad Arteche asked why Pedro Mil shot her husband, Pedro Mil pointed the gun at her and squeezed the trigger. But, the gun did not fire. Pedro Mil then ran to the waiting tricycle and returned to the PC Camp where he surrendered to his commanding officer. Capt. Villena.

Augusto Arteche and Pedro Arteche died thereafter.

ISSUES:

3

Pedro Mil was charged of two counts of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation with the aggravating circumstances of (a) taking advantage of his public position; (b) use of motor vehicle; (c) that the wrong done was deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission; and (d) that means were employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. Is the aggravating circumstance of cruelty present?

For killing Sgt. Pedro Arteche, Pedro Mil was also accused of Murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstances of (a) taking advantage of his public position; (b) use of a motor vehicle; (c) that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party; and (d) that the act was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank. And for the shooting of Salvador Alba he was charged of frustrated murder with the illegal possession of firearm.

HELD: The court finds that there is no treachery on the part of Pedro Mil as to the

facts had shown that Augusto Arteche had been forewarned of the presence of Pedro Mil in the Amba’s refreshment Parlor. On the other hand, when Pedro fired at the victim who, with hands upraised, was pleading that his life be spared. Treachery, therefore, qualifies the crime to murder. There is no aggravating circumstance with cruelty on the part of Pedro Mil when he kicked the deceased or placed his right foot on the body of the deceased was to verify whether or not the latter was still alive, and not for the purpose of deliberately and inhumanly increasing the victims sufferings. The aggravating circumstance of cruelty cannot therefore be appreciated against the accused. For the same reason, aside from the fact that it was not alleged in the information, We cannot consider as present the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the victim's person or corpse. The court sets the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

As to the case of Pedro Arteche, the court finds that Pedro Mil, there is no presence of evident premeditation, use of motor vehicle and , there is no evidence that the accused deliberately or particularly intended to insult or disregard the respect due the offended party. The mitigating circumstance of “passion and obfuscation” is present when he killed the former for the reason of the failure to deliver the letter to Augusto Arteche.

WHEREFORE, the court finds Pedro Mil guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery and attended by the sole aggravating circumstance of taking

4

advantage of his public position, offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The correct penalty therefore should be reclusion perpetua, with Augusto Arteche’s case. With Pedro Arteche’s case, Pedro Mil is guilty of murder, qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstances of (a) dwelling, and (b) taking advantage of public position; and the mitigating circumstances of (a) voluntary surrender, and (b) passion and obfuscation. The correct penalty, therefore, isreclusion perpetua.

In Criminal Case No. 7548, the accused Pedro Mil is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Augusto Arteche in the sum of P12,000.00; and in Criminal Case No. 7551, the accused Pedro Mil is likewise sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Arteche in the sum of P12,000.00.

The decision of the trial court in both cases is affirmed in all other respects. So ordered.

5

G.R. Nos. 128346-48 191 SCRA 377 August 14, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMEON B. CRUZ a.k.a. Barok, accused-appellant.

FACTS: On the third week of August, 1994, Simeon Cruz the father of Vanessa,

Lorraine, Ian, and Mark. Wednesday evening Simeon Cruz went home and called his children downstairs in the master’s bedroom. There he orderd Vanessa to enter the room, Vanessa refused but pulled the latter to the room. There he threatened Vanessa to succeed with his plan. On the second week of November the same year, Simeon arrived home 12o’clock in the midnight, Vanessa together with her younger siblings were sleeping when their father called them to go to the master’s bedroom, their he instructed Lorraine and Mark and Ian to go out of the room and left Vanessa with him then he proceeded to his plan to rape his own child. On the third week of the same month, Simeon went home heavily drunk he again raped his daughter forcibly and instructed her to do such inhuman acts to him against the will of the victim but because of threats she followed what her father instructed her to do.

On March 26, 1996 again Simeon molested her daughter upon the knowledge of Felicidad the grandmother of Vanessa she called for help and brought her grandchildren to her house in Mataas na Kahoy, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija. For the first time, Vanessa revealed to her grandmother the bestial acts committed by her father against her.

On March 28, 1996, Vanessa was accompanied by her grandmother to the NBI office in Cabanatuan City to lodge a complaint for rape against her father. After taking her sworn statement on April 30, 1996, the NBI authorities in Cabanatuan City arrested the appellant on May 1, 1996. The physical examination conducted by Dra. Lucila Gatchalian, M.D. on Vanessa at the Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Memorial Research and Medical Center in Cabanatuan City on April 30, 1996.

ISSUES: Simeon Cruz was charged of three counts of rape namely; Criminal Case #

6970-AF, 6971-AF, 6972-AF and to indemnify the victim with the amount of fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) pesos as moral damages and twenty thousand pesos (20,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages with each cases.

HELD: The court finds the testimonies of the offended party particularly Vanessa

Cruz the daughter of the accused reliable and spontaneous the fact that she is minor

6

and at very young age to fabricate information against her father, the three counts of rape are considered true and sustaining. The defense of the accused is not reliable, falsely constructed.

WHEREFORE, this court finds Simeon B. Cruz a.k.a. barok, of three counts of rape with MODIFICATION that the appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim, herein private complainant Vanessa S. Cruz, in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in addition to P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of the offense proved. So ordered.

7

G.R. No. L-38         76 Phil 463     April 6, 1946

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SAMUEL TANCHOCO y MARCELO, defendant-appellant.Jose M. Santos for appellant.Office of the First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Lacson for appellee

FACTS: On April 6, 1945 at the house of Deogracias Gutierrez in the district of

Caloocan, City of Manila, and made arrangements with him to deposit in his house certain goods and merchandise for compensation; that the following day, April 7, 1945, at about 7:30 in the evening, Samuel Tanchoco came with a child in a United Army truck, driven by an American negro soldier, which was loaded with the twenty-four (24) bales of United States Army goods, consisting of Army fatigue suits and woolen blankets, among others, of the approximate value of P5,346. Upon unloading the said merchandise there was an American soldier riding a motor vehicle who arrived and then Sauel Tanchoco together with the Ngero soldier run away. Deogracias Gutierrez thereafter, reported the event to her neighbor Captain Kosca a guerrilla captain, in returned the latter reported the incident to the police, suspecting that the army goods were stolen property.

Patrolman Nibungco proceeded to the place but found no traces of the accused, so he brought the sister of the accused to the police station. Samuel Tanchoco showed in the station but the Negro soldier was not able to be found for the latter run away.

ISSUES: The crime charged to Samuel Tanchoco is theft with conspiracy with an

American negro soldier on April 7, 1945, of Army goods amounting to P5, 346.00 pesos. Is the charged against Samuel Tanchoco valid?

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the court finds defendant and appellant Samuel Tanchoco y Marcelo of the crime of theft, as accessory after the fact, beyond reasonable doubt; the judgment appealed from is modified, and, in accordance with the provisions of the article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with article 53 thereof, defendant and appellant is hereby sentenced to one (1) month and one

8

(1) day of arresto mayor, to the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. Defendant and appellant shall be given the benefit of one-half (1/2) of the preventive imprisonment, if any, suffered by him. With this modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs.

So ordered.

9

G.R. No. L-6382       94 Phil 710      March 30, 1954

MANUEL LAPUZ, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.R.A. Cruz and R.G. Umali for the petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for respondents.

FACTS: In the early morning of February 6, 1950, there happened a collision

between two public vehicle the Philippine Rabbit bus no. 43 and Westlutran bus no. 62 which took place in the barrio of Longos, municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan. Manuel Lapuz the driver of the latter vehicle was charged with the crime of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, for the death of Pedro Simbillo and for the injuries received by Remigio Barnes and Marcelino Cardenas, all passengers in the Philippine Rabbit bus.

ISSUES:Whether the errors in the decision of the charged to the accused are valid.

HELD: The court finds it not valid. The information for homicide with serious

physical injuries alleged facts sufficient to constitute such crime as that defined and penalized by section 67 (d) of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, whereas the information for damage to property is under article 365, third paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code; and the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the petitioner as thus charged. Except as will hereafter be indicated, the petitioner's two separate convictions were proper.

WHEREFORE, the court finds Manuel Lapuz guilty of charged and will undergo imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from 4 months, arresto mayor, to 2 years and 4 months prision correccional, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Simbillo in the sum of P4,000, Remigio Barnes in the sum of P600, and Florencio P Baun in the sum of P6,676.88, all with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs.

So ordered.

10

G.R. No. L-30364       28 SCRA 851       July 28, 1969ANGEL C. BAKING and SIMEON G. RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs.THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-30603             July 28, 1969

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, JOSE LAVA, RAMON ESPIRITU, FEDERICO R. MACLANG, FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ONOFRE MANGILA and CESARIO TORRES, petitioners.Jovito R. Salonga and Martiniano P. Vivo for petitioners Angel C. Baking and Simeon G. Rodriguez.Juan T. David for petitioners Jose Lava, et al.Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Solicitors Eduardo C. Abaya and Vicente A. Torres

FACTS: Previously, on March 31, 1969, petitioners Angel C. Baking and Simeon G.

Rodriguez registered their petition for habeas corpus in G.R. No. L-30364, one of the cases at bar. They claimed that they had been denied the right to a speedy trial. On May 24, 1969, after this Court rendered its decision convicting petitioners of the crime of rebellion, Angel C. Baking and Simeon G. Rodriguez filed a motion for early decision of their petition for habeas corpus and for their immediate release, based primarily upon an averment similar to the other petition for habeas corpus before us in L-30603, filed on June 17, 1969.

ISSUES:Whether or not Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to

detention prisoners.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the court finds that the petitioners namely Angel C. Baking and Simeon G. Rodriguez petition to liberty is denied. Upon the law we read it, petitioners' remedy is not with this Court. The law is the law. We cannot change the law under the guise of interpretation. Under our system of government, we may not tread on forbidden grounds; we cannot rewrite the law. This is the function of Congress. For the reasons given, the petitions herein to set petitioners at liberty are hereby denied. No costs allowed. So ordered.

11

G.R. No. L-48100       72 Phil 441      June 20, 1941FLORENCIO PELOBELLO, petitioner-appellant, vs.GREGORIO PALATINO, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:Florencio Pelobelo filed a case against Gregorio Palatino which was all

about the conditional and absolute pardon. The latter having been convicted of final judgment in 1912 of atendado contra la autoridad y sus agentes and sentenced to imprisonment for two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, was disqualified from voting and being voted upon for the contested municipal office, such disqualification not having been removed by plenary pardon.

Gregorio Palatino was granted by the Governor-General a conditional pardon dated 1915, and was also granted of absolute pardon by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines dated December 25, 1940.

By these facts he restored all his civil and political rights.

ISSUES: Whether or not the absolute pardon had the effect of removing the

disqualification incident to criminal conviction?

HELD:

WHEREFORE, this court finds that Gregorio Palatino restored his civil and political rights. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the purpose in granting him absolute pardon was to enable him to assume the position in deference to the popular will; and the pardon was thus extended on the date mentioned hereinabove and before the date fixed in section 4 of the Election Code for assuming office.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.

So ordered.

12

G.R. No. L-38969-70 170 SCRA 107 February 9, 1989PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FELICIANO MUÑOZ, alias "Tony", et al., accused, MARVIN MILLORA, TOMAS TAYABA, alias "Tamy Tayaba" and JOSE MISLANG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS: Eleven person who were mostly the bodyguards of the mayor, went to

execute their plans to kill and shoot people who have been allegedly accused of hurting one of them. Early morning of June 30, 1972 Mauro Bulatao was shot straight to his mouth thus leaving him dead while Munoz, Mislang and Tayaba were their giving arm to Millora upon executing his devil acts. Millora and Munoz continued to brutally kill the Bulatao’s with the help of Tayaba and Mislang.

The survivors of the attack came to witness and defend their relatives who were killed bloodily and without mercy.

One of the accused accepted his penalty and was sentenced to the gravity of his charged by the other accused pleaded that they were innocent.

ISSUES:Are the eleven persons guilty of charged? What are the charges to the rest of

the involved who did not participated to the shooting?

HELD: The facts and evidences showed that there were brutality with the killings

executed by the accused. The court agrees that the three appellants, together with Muñoz and their seven other companions, participated in the killings of the three Bulataos in the manner described by the witnesses for the prosecution. The defenses of the herein appellants should be, as they properly were, rejected as undeserving of belief in the light of the more convincing and telling evidence submitted by the government.

WHEREFORE, the court finds the appealed decision is MODIFIED and all the accused-appellants are hereby declared guilty as principals in Criminal Case Nos. 0176, 0177 and 0178. Each of them is sentenced to suffer three (3) penalties of reclusion perpetua, and to pay solidarily to the heirs of their victims civil indemnity in the sum of P30,000.00 for each of the deceased, or a total indemnity of P90,000.00, with costs. SO ORDERED.

13

G.R. No. L-47388         147 SCRA 204     October 22, 1940THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARIANO R. MARCOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:In Batac, Ilocos Norte, Second District of the said jurisdiction Mariano

Marcos and Julio Nalundasan were rivals for a political position, wherein, Nalundasan won two consecutive times over Marcos dated 1934 and 1935.

Julio Nalundasan together with his partymen and supporters took a parade around the province. And passed by the territory of the Marcoses in Batac. On September 20, 1935 Julio Nalundasan was shot and killed in their house. Thorough investigation followed and accused Nicasio Layaoen as the principal of the said murder of Nalundasan. After trial, however, Layaoen was acquitted. On December 7, 1938 three of the Marcoses namely, Mariano, Pio and Ferdinand, with Quirino, Lizardo were prosecuted of the said murder.

ISSUES:Is conspiracy present? With whom and how?

HELD:

The theory of the prosecution, stripped of nonessentials, is that Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were prompted to conspire against the life of Julio Nalundasan by the latter's electoral victory over Mariano Marcos. The accused hired Calixto Aguinaldo as a mere bodyguard, Ferdinand as the fireman for he is experienced and a graduate of PMA.

The trial court was of the opinion that the Marcoses and Lizardo conceived the idea of killing Nalundasan with some seriousness only in the morning of September 20, 1935, after the provocative and humiliating parade held by Nalundasan's followers and partymen in the afternoon of the preceding day. But while the defeat of Marcos, followed by such insulting parade, might have irritated the herein defendants, the existence of a motive alone, though perhaps an important consideration, is not proof of the commission of a crime, much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants.

WHEREFORE, the court finds that Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, acquitted of the charge of murder and forthwith liberated from imprisonment and discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio.The court finds that

14

with facts considered, we are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses and Lizards was calculated, or at least tended. directly or indirectly to obstruct the administration of justice and that, therefore, the trial court properly found them guilty of contempt.

So ordered.

15

G.R. No. L-32047 51 SCRA 317 June 25, 1973

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.INOCENCIO BUSA alias INO, defendant and appellant.

FACTS: Inocencio Busa together with two other persons conspired to commit a

robbery and there upon executed it to Romeo Olige having successfully robed P125 pesos and a rubber shoes. Olige was stabbed to death on October 1, 1969. Inocencio Busa pleaded guilty while the two men involved had negative reactions.

ISSUES:The offense charged to Inocencio Busa and two participants to the crime was

an aggravating circumstance of treachery and use of superior strength, and nocturnity. Will Busa get alower penalty upon admitting his guilt of the said crime?

HELD: Inocencio Busa alias Ino freely, voluntarily and spontaneously entered the

plea of guilty, while the two other accused, Marcelo Elardo and Igmedio Cabacha, entered the plea of not guilty.

In sum and substance, it will not suffice, under the law providing for compulsory review of death sentences by this Court,  9 that the accused's plea of guilty is admitted and, on the basis thereof, that judgment is summarily rendered. The essence of judicial review in capital offenses is that while society allows violent retribution for heinous crimes committed against it, it always must make certain that the blood of the innocent is not spilled, or that the guilty are not made to suffer more than their just measure of punishment and retribution. Thus, a judgment meting out the penalty of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and reasonable examination by this Court.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is set aside, and this case is hereby remanded to the court a quofor a new arraignment of the defendant Inocencio Busa alias Ino, with aid of counsel, and consistently with the views herein expressed.

Costs de oficio.

16