PEOPLE V ABARCA wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time

TOPIC: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS - DEATH UNDER the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the
victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code,
DOCTRINE: Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both
that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act
of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused
immediately thereafter. Inflicting death under exceptional be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
circumstances is not murder. Art. 247 does not define an accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act
offense. of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse and must not have
FACTS: been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the
direct by-product of the accused's rage.
 Francisco Abarca was charged of the crime of
Murder with Double Frustrated Murder in the City It must be stressed furthermore that Article 247 does not
Fiscal of Tacloban City. define an offense. In People v. Araque, the SC held that:
 The illicit relationship of Jenny, wife of the accused,
and Khingsley Paul Koh started when the accused Thus, in case of death or serious physical injuries, considering
was in Manila studying for the 1983 bar exams. the enormous provocation and his righteous indignation,
 On July 15, 1984, the accused was in his residence the accused — who would otherwise be criminally liable for
in Tacloban, Leyte. This was how his day went by: the crime of homicide, parricide, murder, or serious physical
morning – he went to the bus station but failed to injury, as the case may be — is punished only with destierro.
catch the trip. 2PM: he went back to the bus station This penalty is mere banishment and, as held in a case, is
but the bus had engine trouble. He just went to the intended more for the protection of the accused than a
house of his father and around 6PM, he arrived at punishment. And where physical injuries other than serious
his home at the V & G Subdivision. are inflicted, the offender is exempted from punishment. In
 Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife, effect, therefore, Article 247, or the exceptional
Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual circumstances mentioned therein, amount to an exempting
intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the circumstance, for even where death or serious physical
accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got injuries is inflicted, the penalty is so greatly lowered as to
his revolver. The accused who was then peeping result to no punishment at all.
above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped
and ran away. We, therefore, conclude that Article 247 of the Revised
 He went to the house of PC soldier Arturo Talbo Penal Code does not define and provide for a specific
arriving there at 6:30PM and got the latter’s M-16 crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for
rifle and went back to his residence where he did the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical
not find his wife and Koh. injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned.
 He went to the majhong place and found Koh
there playing. He fired at Koh three times. Koh was Punishment, consequently, is not inflicted upon the
hit and died and so were Arnold and Lina accused. He is banished, but that is intended for his
Amparado who were inside a room adjacent to the protection. 8
room where Koh was. The spouses Amparado were It shall likewise be noted that inflicting death under
hospitalized. exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act,
 The trial court found the accused guilty of the cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or
complex crime of murder with double frustrated other qualifying circumstances, We cannot accordingly
murder and was sentenced to death. appreciate treachery in this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime As to the spouses Amparado, The Solicitor General
charged – NO. recommends a finding of double frustrated murder against
the accused-appellant, this is where we disagree. The
HELD: There is no question that the accused surprised his wife accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the
and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one committing an
copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule
deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247 presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. But the
prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married case at bar requires distinctions. Here, the accused-
person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual appellant was not committing murder when he discharged
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of his rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot
These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for
convicting the accused-appellant of murder, therefore the injuries suffered by the Amparados.
erred.
Accordingly, even if the accused shouted warning words
Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed before he fired, we hold him liable under the first part,
between the time the accused-appellant discovered his second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less serious physical
injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. The Villanueva ran at the speed of 5-10 kph with the
records show that Arnold Amparado was incapacitated for headlights dimmed.
one and one-half months; there is no showing, with respect  They were approaching a curve on the road where
to Lina Amparado, as to the extent of her injuries. We they were met by a burst of gunfire, wounding
presume that she was placed in confinement for only ten to Villanueva and Licup – bleeding profusely.
fourteen days based on the medical certificate estimating  Flores and Villanueva allegedly did not see any one on
her recovery period. the road flag them down. Flores sketched the location
in open court, but could not tell how many firearms
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby were used. He allegedly jumped out of the jeepney not
MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is sentenced to four knowing that Villanueva and Licup were wounded, and
months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. The saw Pamintuan emerging from the yard of Naron’s
period within which he has been in confinement shall be house. He introduced himself and his companions to be
credited in the service of these penalties. He is furthermore EEs of San Miguel Corp, but Paminutan reproved them
ordered to indemnify Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum for not stopping when flagged.
of P16,000.00 as and for hospitalization expense and the  He was distracted when Villanueva cried out for help.
sum of P1,500.00 as and for Arnold Amparado's loss of Flores was ordered to ask for help and he ran back to
earning capacity. Salangsang’s house and saw that Pet. Yu was there;
Villanueva and Licup were being loaded into a
Jeepney to be taken to the hospital. Villanueva
YAPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN corroborated the statement.
Murder/Homicide  Flores also remembered that there were two sudden
bursts of gunfire which succeeded one another. They
DOCTRINE: brought Licup to Makati Med. He also alleged that he
Homicide, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is did not know the accused prior to the incident.
punished by reclusion temporal whereas an attempt  Salangsang, an electrician at SMC affirmed the
thereof, under Article 250 in relation to Article 51, warrants a statements of his companions.
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for  [DEFENSE] Only Yapyuco took the stand for the defense.
principals in a consummated homicide. He identified himself as the commander of the Police
Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga and superior
FACTS: officer of Pets. Cunanan and Puno, and of accused Yu.
 [PARTIES] The cases are predicted on a shooting  He stated that he and his group met Pamintuan who
incident on April 5, 1988 in San Fernando, Pampanga told him that he had earlier spotted 4 men carrying long
which caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) firearms. Pamintuan allegedly intimated that he and
and injured Noel Villanueva (Villanueva). Petitioners barangay captain Mario Reyes of nearby Del Carmen
Salvador Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco), Generoso Cunanan, had also brought in a number of armed men and that
Jr. (Cunanan) and Ernesto Puno (Puno) were the there were likewise Cafgu members convened at the
accused. They were members of the Integrated residence of Naron.
National Police (INP) stationed at the Sindalan  Pamintuan announced the approach of his suspects,
Substation in Sn Fernando, Pampanga. hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno took post in the
 [PARTIES] Jose Pamintuan (Pamintuan) and Mario Reyes middle of the road at the curve where the Tamaraw
were brgy. Captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen. jeepney conveying the victims would make an
Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes and Virgilio Manguerra inevitable turn. He allegedly flagged down the vehicle
(Manguerra), Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson which instead of stopping, accelerated and swerved to
(Lacson), Renato Yu, Jaime Pabalan (Pabalan) and its left.
Carlos David (David), who were either members of the  Yapyuco recalled that one of the occupants of the
Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or civilian volunteer jeepney then alighted and exclaimed at Pamintuan
officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and that they were San Miguel Corporation employees.
Telebastagan. Holding their fire, Yapyuco and his men then
 They were all charged with Murder, Multiple Attempted immediately searched the vehicle but found no
Murder and Frustrated Murder in three Informations. firearms but instead, two injured passengers whom they
 The accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. loaded into his jeepney and delivered to nearby St.
The accused Pabalan died earlier, and Yapyuco was Francis Hospital. From there he and his men returned to
allegedly indisposed – entered pleas of not guilty. Mario the scene supposedly to investigate and look for the
Reyes, Andres Reyes, David Lugtu, Lacson, Yu, and people who fired directly at the jeepney. They found no
Manguerra filed for Bail. one; the Tamaraw jeepney was likewise gone. He
 [PROSECUTION] April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, further explained that the peace and order situation in
De Vera, Panlican, and Licup were at the residence of Brgy. Quebiawan at the time was in bad shape.
Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebration.  SANDIGANBAYAN: found Yapyuco, Cunanan, Puno,
The company decided to leave at around 7:30pm, Manguera and Mario and Andres Reyes guilty as co-
shortly after the religious possession passes. principals in the separate offense of homicide for the
 Salangsang reminded Villanueva to drive carefully and eventual death of Licup (instead of murder) and of
watch out for potholes and open canals on the road. attempted homicide for the injury sustained by
Licup was in the passenger seat and the rest of his Villanueva (instead of frustrated murder), and
companions were at the back of his Tamaraw. acquitted the rest in those cases. It acquitted all of them
 of attempted murder in respect of Flores, Panlican, De PEOPLE v. WHISENHUNT
Vera and Calma. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS: Murder/Homicide
 SANDIGANBAYAN: declared that the shootout which
caused injuries to Villanueva and which brought the DOCTRINE: Even if treachery was not present, the crime
eventual death of Licup has been committed by would still be murder because of the dismemberment of the
petitioners herein willfully under the guise of maintaining dead body. One of the qualifying circumstances of murder
peace and order under Article 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code is
outraging or scoffing at (the) person or corpse of the victim.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of homicide and
frustrated homicide - FACTS:
 Whisenhunt and the Elsa Santos-Castillo (Elsie) were
HELD: lovers. They met at the Apex Motor Corporation where
 The records disclose no ill motives attributed to both were working as Manager and Assistant Personnel
petitioners by the prosecution. It is interesting that, in Manager, respectively. Both were married, but
negating the allegation that they had by their acts estranged from their respective spouses. Elsa resigned
intended to kill the occupants of the jeepney, from Apex presumably to avoid the nasty rumors about
petitioners turn to their co-accused Pamintuan, whose her illicit affair. She continued her affair with Whisenhunt
picture depicted in the defense evidence is certainly even after she resigned.
an ugly one: petitioners’ affidavits as well as Yapyuco’s  Demetrio Ravelo, assigned to drive for Whisenhunt, was
testimony are replete with suggestions that it was ordered to pick Elsa up to be brought to Whisenhunt’s
Pamintuan alone who harbored the motive to ambush the condo unit. Whisenhunt asked him to stay because
the suspects as it was he who their (petitioners’) minds he had to drive Elsa home. He waited until a little past
that which they later on conceded to be a mistaken 10:00 p.m. When he had not heard from Whisenhunt, he
belief as to the identity of the suspects. told Lucy, the housemaid, that he was going home.
 In the instant case, petitioners, without abandoning  The following day, Demetrio again reported to work. At
their claim that they did not intend to kill anyone of the around noon, Lucy asked if he had seen a kitchen knife
victims, admit having willfully discharged their service which was missing. He then overheard Lucy ask
firearms; and the manner by which the bullets Whisenhunt, who told her that the kitchen knife was in
concentrated on the passenger side of the jeepney his bedroom. Demetrio saw Whisenhunt go inside the
permits no other conclusion than that the shots were room and, shortly thereafter, hand the knife to Lucy.
intended for the persons lying along the line of fire. We  Later, Lucy told Demetrio to buy cigarettes for
do not doubt that instances abound where the Whisenhunt. He went out to buy the cigarettes and
discharge of a firearm at another is not in itself sufficient gave them to Lucy. At 5:00 p.m., Whisenhunt told
to sustain a finding of intention to kill, and that there are Demetrio to go home.
instances where the attendant circumstances  Demetrio reported again the next day. He was allowed
conclusively establish that the discharge was not in fact by Whisenhunt to go to Apex to follow up his salary.
animated by intent to kill. Yet the rule is that in While he was there, Amy Serrano asked him if Elsa was
ascertaining the intention with which a specific act is still in Whisenhunt’s condominium unit. Although he did
committed, it is always proper and necessary to look not see Elsa there, he answered yes. Amy gave him
not merely to the act itself but to all the attendant black plastic garbage bags which he turned over to
circumstances so far as they develop in the evidence. Whisenhunt upon his return to the condominium. The
 Homicide, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, latter then ordered him to drive Lucy to Cubao and to
is punished by reclusion temporal whereas an attempt go home to get some clothes, since they were leaving
thereof, under Article 250 in relation to Article 51, for Bagac, Bataan.
warrants a penalty lower by two degrees than that  In the condo unit, while Demetrio was in the servants’
prescribed for principals in a consummated homicide. quarters watching television, Whisenhunt came in. He
Petitioners in these cases are entitled to the ordinary asked Demetrio how long he wanted to work for him.
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and Demetrio replied that he was willing to work for him
there being no aggravating circumstance proved and forever, and expressed his full trust in him. Upon hearing
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the this, Whisenhunt shed tears and embraced Demetrio.
Sandiganbayan has properly fixed in Criminal the range There he said that he had a problem and that Elsa was
of the penalty from six (6) years and one (1) day, but dead. Demetrio asked, Bakit mo siya pinatay? He
should have denominated the same as prision mayor, answered that he did not kill Elsa, rather she died of
not prision correccional, to twelve (12) years and one bangungot.
(1) day of reclusion temporal.  Demetrio suggested that Elsa’s body be autopsied, but
 The Sandiganbayan correctly found that Pers are guilty Whisenhunt had already beheaded her. He asked
as co-principaks in the crimes of homicide and Demetrio if he wanted to see the decapitated body,
attempted homicide only, for the death of Licup, and for but the latter refused. The two of them went to
the non-fatal injuries sustained by Villanueva, and they Shoppesville and bought a big bag with a zipper and
deserve an acquittal together with the other accused, rollers, colored black and gray.
of the charge of attempted murder with respect to the  When they returned to the condominium, Whisenhunt
unharmed victims. asked Demetrio to help him wrap the body in the black
garbage bags. Demetrio entered the bathroom and
found the dismembered hands, feet, trunk and head of
a woman. He lifted the severed head by the hair and,
 when he lifted it, he saw Elsa’s face. He placed this in a emanated from inside. Atty. Sacaguing inspected the
black trash bag. He helped place the other body parts interior of the trunk and found stains, which he
in three separate garbage bags. They packed all the suspected to be blood. Thus, he instructed his agents to
garbage bags in the bag with the zipper and rollers, fetch a technician from the NBI Chemistry Division to
which they had bought in Shoppesville. Then, they examine the stain.
brought the bag down and loaded it in the trunk of the  When Whisenhunt was brought to DOJ for inquest, he
car. moved that a preliminary investigation be conducted,
 They left the condominium and Whisenhunt told and signed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 RPC.
Demetrio to drive around Batangas and Tagaytay City. Hence, he was detained at the NBI.
After leaving Tagaytay, they entered SLEX and headed  Armed with a search warrant, the NBI agents
towards Sta. Rosa, Laguna. When they were near Puting conducted a search of the condominium unit of
Kahoy and Silangan, Whisenhunt told Demetrio to turn Whisenhunt. They recovered hair strands from
into a narrow road and was ordered to stop the car. underneath the rubber mat and rugs inside the
 Whisenhunt alighted and told Demetrio to get the bag bathroom. In the bedroom, they found bloodstains on
in the trunk. Whisenhunt took the plastic bags inside the the bedspread and covers. They also found a pair of
bag and dumped them by the roadside. Topsider shoes with bloodstains, a bottle of Vicks
 Before reaching Bagac, Whisenhunt ordered Demetrio Formula cough syrup, and some more hair strands on
to stop the car on top of a bridge. He told Demetrio to the lampshade.
get off and to throw a bag into the river. Later, they  Later that day, Demetrio Ravelo accompanied some
passed another bridge and he again told Demetrio to NBI agents to retrace the route they took going to
pull over. He alighted and threw Elsa’s clothes over the Bataan, with the objective of retrieving the items thrown
bridge. On the way, Demetrio noticed that Whisenhunt away. They were able to recover a violet bag, one
took something from a bag, tore it to pieces and threw brown sandal and a shirt with violet and green floral
it out of the window. When they passed Pilar, Bataan, prints which were brought to the NBI office.
Whisenhunt threw Elsa’s violet Giordano bag. As they  In the meantime, Caroline Y. Custodio, Supervising
reached the road boundary of Bagac, he wrung a Forensic Biologist of the NBI, who conducted
short-sleeved dress with violet and green stripes, and comparative examinations to the specimens recovered
threw it on a grassy lot. found to give positive results for human blood type B.
 It was about midnight when the two arrived at the  Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, the Medico-Legal Officer who
mansion. Demetrio was unable to sleep that night, as conducted the autopsy, concluded that the cause of
he was scared that he might be the next victim. death of Elsa Santos Castillo were stab wounds. Dr.
 The next morning, Whisenhunt ordered Demetrio to Mendez found one stab wound on the right breast
clean the trunk of the car, after which, they went off for which penetrated the right lung. He also found two stab
Manila. They arrived at the corner of EDSA and Quezon wounds under the left breast which penetrated the
Avenue, Demetrio asked if he can get off since he diaphragm and abdominal cavity, and also
wanted to go home to Fairview. Before Demetrio left, penetrated the right portion of the liver.
he was told that he and his family can go on a  In his defense, Whisenhunt alleged that he stayed home
vacation, and will be given money. Whisenhunt gave on the alleged day of the crime because he was not
Demetrio P50.00 for his transportation going to Fairview. feeling well. He denied that he asked Demetrio to fetch
 When Demetrio got home, he immediately told his Elsa. He refuted Demetrio’s testimony that he asked him
family what happened. His wife told him to report the to buy cigarettes, or that accused-appellant told him to
incident to Fiscal Joey Diaz. Demetrio and his wife went go home at 5:00 p.m. Rather, he maintained that he did
to the house of Fiscal Diaz in Fairview to talk to him. not see Demetrio at any time in the afternoon of that
 The following morning, Fiscal Diaz, Demetrio, his wife day. When he was feeling better, he told Demetrio that
and his brothers went to DOJ, and were referred to the they were to leave for Bagac, Bataan that afternoon.
NBI, where Demetrio gave his statement before Atty. They left the condominium and proceeded straight to
Sacaquing, head of the Anti-Organized Crime Division. Bagac. When they arrived at Bagac, he went straight
 Initially, Atty. Sacaguing thought Demetrio was to the kitchen and met his mother, father, aunt and
exaggerating, so he dispatched a team of NBI agents grandmother. Demetrio got the things out of the car
to verify the report. Accompanied by Demetrio, the and then asked Whisenhunt’s permission to take the car
team proceeded to Sta. Rosa, Laguna. There, they to go to the town.
found a crowd of people gathered around the  According to him, he first learned of Elsa’s death when
mutilated parts of a human body along the road, he was arrested by the NBI. He denied having anything
discovered by tricycle drivers. Agent Panganiban to do with her death, saying that he had no reason to
radioed Atty. Sacaguing in Manila that the report was kill her since he was in love with her. Sometime during
positive. his relationship with Elsa, he claimed having received in
 Whisenhunt was arrested by operatives of the NBI as he the mails two anonymous letters. At first, he ignored the
drove up to his parking space at Apex Motor letters. But when he told Elsa about them, she got very
Corporation. When brought to the NBI, Atty. Sacaguing upset and worried. She said the letters came from Fred,
informed him that it may be necessary to impound the her estranged husband.
car since the same was used in the commission of the
crime. Whisenhunt asked permission to retrieve personal
belongings from the car. After getting his things from the TRIAL COURT: Convicted Whisenhunt of the crime of murder
car, he opened the trunk to place some items inside. and ordered him to pay the heirs of the deceased actual
When he opened the compartment, a foul stench
damage, moral damages, exemplary damages and police and NBI agents at the spot where Demetrio
attorneys fees. Hence, Appeal. pointed;
7. That hair specimens found inside his bathroom and
ISSUE: Whether or not Whisenhunt is guilty of Murder (YES, bedroom showed similarities with hair taken from
qualified by Outraging and Scoffing at the Corpse of the Elsa’s head; and
Victim) 8. That the bloodstains found on the bedspread,
covers and in the trunk of his car, all matched Elsa’s
HELD: blood type.
Before Whisenhunt confessed to Demetrio Ravelo what had
happened to Elsa Castillo, he first asked the latter how long Whisenhunt attempts to refute Demetrio’s statements by
he was willing to work for him, and how far his loyalty will go. saying that he had repeatedly reprimanded the latter for
This was logical if he wanted to ensure that Demetrio would discourteous and reckless driving, and that he had already
stand by his side after learning what he was about to reveal. asked the latter to tender his resignation. Thus, he claims
More importantly, Demetrio’s description of Elsa’s imputation was in order to get back at him. This Court finds
dismembered body, as he found it in the bathroom, the cruel treatment by an employer too flimsy a motive to
perfectly jibed with the appearance of the mutilated body implicate him in such a gruesome and hideous crime. SC
parts, as shown in the photographs presented by the viewed Demetrio’s act of promptly reporting the incident to
prosecution. Likewise, the mutilated body parts, as well as his family and, later, to the authorities, as a genuine desire
the other items thrown by accused-appellant along the to bring justice to the cruel and senseless slaying of Elsa
road to Bataan, were found by the NBI agents as Demetrio Santos Castillo, whom he knew well.
pointed, which confirms that, indeed, the latter witnessed
how Whisenhunt disposed of Elsa’s body and personal Accused-appellant presented in evidence two supposedly
belongings one by one. threatening letters which, according to Elsa, were written by
the latter’s husband. There is nothing in these letters which
Perhaps more damning to Whisenhunt is the physical will exculpate him from criminal liability. The fact remains
evidence against him. The findings of the forensic biologist that Elsa was last seen alive in his condominium unit, and
on the examination of the hair samples and bloodstains all subsequently discovered dead in his bathroom.
confirm Elsa’s death inside his bedroom. On the other hand,
the autopsy report revealed that Elsa was stabbed at least Qualifying Circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength not
three times on the chest. This, taken together with Present
Demetrio’s testimony that Whisenhunt kept the kitchen knife Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality
inside his bedroom leads to the inescapable fact that he of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming
stabbed Elsa inside the bedroom or bathroom. a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken
While it may be true that there was no eyewitness to the advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The
death of Elsa, the confluence of the testimonial and physical fact that the victim was a woman does not, by itself,
evidence against accused-appellant creates an unbroken establish that accused-appellant committed the crime with
chain of circumstantial evidence that naturally leads to the abuse of superior strength. There ought to be enough proof
fair and reasonable conclusion that Whisenhunt was the of the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim.
author of the crime, to the exclusion of all others. The rules
on evidence and jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an Abuse of superior strength must be shown and clearly
accused through circumstantial evidence when the established as the crime itself. In this case, nobody
following requisites concur: (1) there must be more than one witnessed the actual killing. Nowhere in Demetrio’s
circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven testimony, and it is not indicated in any of the pieces of
facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances physical evidence, that accused-appellant deliberately
produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the took advantage of his superior strength in overpowering
accused. Elsa. On the contrary, SC observed from viewing the
photograph of Whisenhunt that he has a rather small frame.
In the case at bar, the following circumstances were Hence, the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of
successfully proven by the prosecution without a shadow of abuse of superior strength was not adequately proved and
doubt, to wit: cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant.
1. Elsa Santos Castillo was brought to Whisenhunt’s
condominium unit on September 23, 1993; Qualifying Circumstance of Outraging and Scoffing at the
2. On September 24, 1993, Whisenhunt’s housemaid Corpse of the Victim
was looking for her kitchen knife and he gave it to It was correctly appreciated by the trial court. The mere
her, saying that it was in his bedroom; decapitation of the victim’s head constitutes outraging or
3. On September 25, 1993, he and Demetrio Ravelo scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing
collected the dismembered body parts of Elsa from to murder. In this case, accused-appellant not only
the bathroom inside his bedroom; beheaded Elsa. He further cut up her body like pieces of
4. That Whisenhunt disposed of the body parts by a meat. Then, he strewed the dismembered parts of her body
roadside somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna; in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on
5. That he also disposed of Elsas personal belongings the ground. The sight of Elsa’s severed body parts on the
along the road going to Bagac, Bataan; ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in
6. That the mutilated body parts of a female cadaver, evidence, is both revolting and horrifying.
which was later identified as Elsa, were found by the
As ruled in a similar case, even if treachery was not present members of his family to the exit where there was an
in this case, the crime would still be murder because of the ambulance standing by. The three were taken to the
dismemberment of the dead body. One of the qualifying Sta. Monica Hospital and were later transferred to the
circumstances of murder under Article 248, par. 6, of the Quezon City Medical Center.
Revised Penal Code is outraging or scoffing at (the) person  Defense Version: Andres cut Gonzalez’s path by
or corpse of the victim. positioning his FX obliquely along the lane from the left
side. Andres then got out of his vehicle, stood beside his
Regional Trial Court decision AFFIRMED. Appeal is DENIED. car window, and repeatedly cursed: “Putang ina mo,
ang tanda-tanda mo na hindi ka pa marunong
magmaneho. Ang bobo-bobo mo.” The appellant
stayed inside his car and allegedly replied, “Pasensiya
ka na hindi kita nakita, nasilaw ako. Aksidente lang.”
PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ Gonzalez and Quidic testified that Noel Andres went
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Passion or Obfuscation back to his vehicle to move it in such a way that it is
straight in front of their car. Andres allegedly got out of
NOTE: Facts and ruling taken from Jasfer’s digest of this case his vehicle again and continued shouting and cursing.
DOCTRINE: The shooting was not attended by treachery Dino, who rode in another vehicle decided to go back
and accordingly the crime committed is homicide and not when he did not see his fathers car behind him. When
murder. The determining factor on whether or not the Dino arrived at the scene he confronted Andres and
commission of a crime is attended by treachery is not the the two had an altercation. Both Dino and Gonzalez
resulting crime committed but the mode of attack stated that Andres remained outside his vehicle during
employed in its execution. the altercation with Dino. When Andres suddenly
reached for something inside his vehicle, Dino froze on
The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is the spot where he stood. This prompted Gonzalez to get
physical injuries or homicide and such intent is made his gun from the glove compartment and feeling that
manifest by the acts of the accused which are undoubtedly his son was threatened he got out of his car ready to
intended to kill the victim. In case of doubt as to the shoot. When he saw that Andres did not have a
homicidal intent of the accused, he should be convicted of weapon he put down his hand holding the gun.
the lesser offense of physical injuries.  This is when Gonzalez’s daughter Trisha arrived at the
scene, walked past Dino and Andres, and pushed the
FACTS: Gonzalez away. She hugged her father and in the
 Both the families of Noel Andres and Inocencio process held his hand holding the gun. Gonzalez tried
Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola to free his hand and with Trisha’s substantial body
Memorial Park. Gonzalez was driving a white Isuzu weight pushing against him, he lost his balance and the
Esteem with his grandson and three housemaids, while gun accidentally fired. He did not know he shot
Andres was driving a maroon Toyota FX with his somebody until, Francar Valdez, got out of the vehicle
pregnant wife Feliber Andres, his 2-year old son, carrying a bloodied small boy. Gonzalez did not try to
Kenneth, his nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law, Francar flee and even told Valdez to take the wounded to the
Valdez. hospital.
 At the intersection near the Garden of Remembrance,  Feliber Andres, the wife of Noel Andres did not die
while Gonzalez was turning left towards the exit and instantaneously. She lived to give birth to a baby girl by
Noel Andres was headed straight along the road to the caesarian section and died the following morning on
exit their vehicles almost collided. Gonzalez continued November 1, 1998 (she was shot on the left side of the
driving along his way while Andres drove behind for head). Kenneth and Kevin were treated for extraction
some time and cut him off when he found the of metallic fragments on their faces. They were
opportunity to do so. Andres then got out of his vehicle discharged six days later.
and knocked on Gonzalez’s car window.  An Information for the complex crime of Murder, Double
 Prosecution Version: Andres calmly told the appellant Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder was filed
to be careful with his driving and informed the latter that against Gonzalez. On arraignment he pleaded not
he is with his family. Gonzalez allegedly replied: guilty to the crimes charged.
“Accidents are accidents, what’s your problem.”  Trial Court: Held Gonzalez guilty of the complex crime of
Andres stated that he saw Gonzales turning red in anger murder (attended by qualifying circumstance of
so he decided to go back to his vehicle when he was treachery) for the death of Feliber Andres and for 2
blocked by Gonzalez’ son, Dino, who said, “Anong counts of frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by
problema mo sa erpat ko”. Andres, felt threatened and Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez and sentenced him
immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the drivers seat, to death penalty.
closed the door, and partially opened the car window  Hence, this appeal. One of Gonzalez’s assigned errors is
just wide enough to talk back. that the trial court erred when it failed to appreciate the
 Suddenly, one of his passengers said “Binaril kami”. He mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation,
turned to his wife Feliber Andres and saw her bloodied lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong,
and unconscious, his son and nephew were also provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
wounded. Andres admitted in court that he and Dino immediately preceded the act, incomplete defense of
were shouting at each other so that he did not hear the relative, and voluntary surrender. He asserts that these
shot. Andres then got out of his vehicle to warn mitigating circumstances were duly proven during the
Gonzalez not to flee. He then took the wounded trial and are supported by the evidence on record.
 As regards the injuries sustained by the two children, the
ISSUES: Whether or not Gonzalez was guilty of murder (NO, crime committed are two counts of slight physical injuries.
homicide only) The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is
physical injuries or homicide and such intent is made
HELD: manifest by the acts of the accused which are undoubtedly
The prosecution failed to show that the shooting was intended to kill the victim. In case of doubt as to the
attended by treachery, hence the crime committed homicidal intent of the accused, he should be convicted of
against Feliber Andres is homicide. the lesser offense of physical injuries. The intent to kill is
absent in this case. It was also found that one small metallic
The determining factor on whether or not the commission of fragment was extracted from Kenneth below his left eye
a crime is attended by treachery is not the resulting crime while another fragment was extracted from Kevin
committed but the mode of attack employed in its immediately below the level of his skin before the cheek
execution. Treachery is never presumed. It is required that bone. An examination of the testimonies of the attending
the manner of attack must be shown to have been physicians, showed that the wounds sustained by the two
attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime itself. children from the metallic fragments are not in themselves
fatal but may cause death if left untreated. Both children
In this case, the shooting was not attended by treachery were discharged after six days of treatment and there is no
and accordingly the crime committed for the death of showing that they required subsequent treatment or that
Feliber Andres is homicide and not murder. The encounter they were immobilized for a greater number of days by
between Noel Andres and the appellant was a chance reason of the injuries sustained.
encounter. They were total strangers before their vehicles
almost collided at an intersection inside the memorial park. TRIAL COURT Decision is MODIFIED. The appellant is hereby
Unfortunately, heated exchange of remarks that followed found GUILTY OF HOMICIDE for the death of Feliber Andres
the near collision was fanned by a short temper, which in and slight physical injuries committed against Kenneth
the case of the appellant, was augmented by the Andres and Kevin Valdez.
improvident use of a firearm.
For the death of Feliber Andres, and in the absence of any
At first blush it would seem that the shooting of Feliber mitigating circumstance, the appellant is hereby sentenced
Andres was attended by treachery as she was inside the FX to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision
witnessing her husband’s altercation, first, with the appellant mayor, in its medium period, as minimum to 14 years 8
then with the appellant’s son, totally defenseless from the months and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its medium
shot that came suddenly from her left side. Public outrage period, as maximum. For each count of the slight physical
over the death of Feliber was heightened by the fact that injuries committed against Kenneth Andres and Kevin
she was then pregnant with her second child and her death Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20 days of
left a new born baby girl and a two-year old boy motherless. arresto menor in its medium period.

However, a meticulous review of the evidence doesn’t

show a finding of treachery. The pictures indicate that
Gonzalez fired at the FX at an angle away from Noel Andres
and that Gonzalez was not aiming at anybody in particular. PEOPLE v. CONTINENTE
It is not disputed that the appellant’s car was directly behind Crimes Against Persons – Murder
the complainants FX and that Gonzalez who was then
seated at the driver’s seat alighted from his car, took a few DOCTRINE: There is treachery when the offender commits
steps then fired at the left side of the FX. It is clear that the any of the crimes against person, employing means,
shot was fired away from Noel Andres. The bullet hit Feliber methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
near her temple above the left eye indicating that she was directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to
facing left towards her husband when the shot was fired. himself arising from any defense which the offended party
The direct hit on Feliber’s head shows that the angle of the might make
shot was indeed away from Noel Andres. Even the
eyewitness for the prosecution testified that had the FACTS:
appellant intended to kill Noel Andres he could have shot
directly at him, considering that Noel Andres was just a few
 On April 21, 1989, at around 7:00 am, the car of US
steps away from him and that Noel Andres was visible from
Col. James Rowe, Deputy Commander, Joint U. S.
the outside because his window was partially open.
Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG), was
ambushed at the corner of Tomas Morato Street
The fact that the appellant fired his gun from behind the
and Timog Avenue in Quezon City while he was on
victim does not by itself amount to treachery. There is no
his way to the JUSMAG Compound. The car was
evidence on record that the appellant deliberately
driven by Rowe’s driver, Joaquin Vinuya.
positioned himself behind the victim to gain advantage
 The gunmen who were on board an old model
over him when he fired the shot. On the contrary, the
Toyota Corolla car suddenly fired at his car, thereby
evidence before us reveals that the position of the
killing Col. Rowe and seriously wounding his driver,
appellant’s car was not of his own doing but it became so
Joaquin Vinuya. The car that was used by the
when Noel Andres overtook his car and cut off his path.
gunmen was followed by a Mitsubishi Lancer car
when it sped away from the site of the ambush.
 The same Toyota Corolla car was later recovered encounter was on April 20, 1989, she saw
on the same day by a team from the Philippine the same person inside the white Mitsubishi
Constabulary, at No. 4 Windsor Street, San Lancer car which was then parked along
Francisco Del Monte in Quezon City. the side of Tomas Morato Street while she
 Upon investigation, the Central Intelligence Service was again on her way to attend practicum
(CIS) agents established the involvement of Donato in the JUSMAG Compound. She learned of
Continente who was an employee of the UP the identity of the driver as a certain
Collegian in UP Diliman. After Continente was Raymond Navarro, who was allegedly a
arrested, he was brought to Camp Crame for member of the NPA, from the pictures
questioning. shown her by the CIS investigators in Camp
 During the interrogation, he admitted his Crame.
participation in the said ambush as a member of  Joaquin Vinuya testified that he was employed by
the surveillance unit under the Political JUSMAG as the driver of Rowe. On April 21, 1989, he
Assassination Team of the CPP-NPA. fetched Col. Rowe from his house in Potsdam
 The CIS agents were also able to establish the Street, Greenhills, Mandaluyong to report for work
participation of Juanito Itaas in the said ambush. in JUSMAG. While he was making a right turn at the
Itaas was a known member of the Sparrow Unit of intersection of Timog Avenue toward Tomas Morato
the NPA. He was arrested in Davao and during the Street, he noticed 4 people on board a red car, 2
questioning, Itaas disclosed that he was an active of whom suddenly opened fire at the car that he
member of the Sparrow Unit of the NPA based in was driving hitting him in the process. The shooting
Davao City and confessed, in the presence of Atty. incident happened very fast and that he had no
Filemon Corpuz who apprised and explained to him opportunity to recognize the persons inside the red
his constitutional rights, that he was one of those car. Despite the incident, Vinuya managed to drive
who fired at the gray Mitsubishi Galant car of Col. the car to the JUSMAG Compound. Upon arrival at
James Rowe. the JUSMAG Compound, he found out that Col.
 Meanwhile, it appears that the said ambush was James Rowe, who was sitting at the back seat of
also witnessed by a certain Meriam Zulueta who the car, was also hit during the shooting incident.
was in the area. She alleged that when she was  Col. James Rowe and Joaquin Vinuya were initially
about to cross the Tomas Morato street, she heard brought to the V. Luna Hospital in Quezon City for
several gunshots. Upon looking at the direction treatment. Subsequently, they were transferred to
where the gunshots emanated, she saw persons on the Clark Air Base Hospital in Pampanga but then
board a maroon car firing at a gray car at a Capt. Rowe was already dead.
distance of more or less one meter at the corner of  Vinuya was treated in the Clark Air Base Hospital in
Tomas Morato Street and Timog Avenue in Quezon Pampanga for four days for the injuries he sustained
City. Zulueta returned to the side of the street to on his head, shoulder, and on the back portion of
seek for cover but she could not find any, so she his left hand. Thereafter, he was taken back to
docked and covered her head with her bag while JUSMAG Compound in Quezon City to recuperate.
continuously looking at the persons who were firing  Itaas and Continente denied the allegations and
at the gray car contended that they were both arrested,
o She was able to recognize Itaas when the blindfolded, on separate occasions, and brought
latter was presented for identification in to Camp Crame for questioning. They also
Camp Crame. She alleged that it was Itaas contended that they were tortured and were
who was directly behind the driver of the forced to admit the crime they did not commit.
maroon car, and his body was half  On rebuttal, prosecution witness Sgt. Reynaldo dela
exposed while he was firing at the gray car Cruz that it is the standard operating procedure in
with the use of along firearm. the CIS to put a blindfold on an arrested suspected
o Zulueta also recognized Continente whom NPA member in order to withhold from him the view
she had encountered on at least three and location of the entrance, the exit and the
occasions at a carinderia outside the terrain in the camp.
JUSMAG Compound. She came to know  2 Informations were filed against Itaas and
the identity of appellant Continente when Continente for the crimes of murder and frustrated
Continente was presented to her in Camp murder. RTC rendered its decision finding both
Crame for identification. She thought that appellants Juanito Itaas and Donato Continente
he was the tricycle driver whom she had guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.
seen in the carinderia near the JUSMAG Continente and Itaas separately instituted the
Compound. instant appeal.
o She was also able to recognize the driver of
the white Mitsubishi Lancer car as the same ISSUE 1: WON the appellants are guilty of murder for killing
person whom she had encountered on US Col. Rowe
two occasions. First encounter was on April
19, 1989 when the car was parked along
HELD 1: YES. The shooting of Col. James Rowe and his driver
Tomas Morato and the driver remarked
was attended by treachery, hence, the crime committed is
"Hoy pare, ang sexy. She-boom!" as she
murder.
was walking along the street toward the
JUSMAG Compound, and the second
The shooting of Col. James Rowe and his driver, Joaquin as accomplice, respectively. Appellant Itaas, as principal, is
Vinuya, was attended by treachery. There is treachery hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
when the offender commits any of the crimes against perpetua. Appellant Continente as accomplice, is hereby
person, employing means, methods or forms in the sentenced to suffer imprisonment for twelve (12) years of
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight
ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Both
defense which the offended party might make. The appellants Itaas and Continente are ORDERED to pay jointly
evidence clearly shows that the mode of execution was and severally the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the
deliberately adopted by the perpetrators to ensure the victim, Col. James Rowe, by way of civil indemnity.
commission of the crime without the least danger unto
themselves arising from the possible resistance of their In Criminal Case No. Q-89-4844, appellants Juanito Itaas
victims. Appellant Itaas and his companions, who were all and Donato Continente are found GUILTY beyond
armed with powerful firearms, waited for the car of Col. reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder, as
Rowe which was being driven by Joaquin Vinuya at the principal and as accomplice, respectively. Appellant Itaas,
corner of Timog Avenue and Tomas Morato Street in as principal, is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
Quezon City. Without any warning, appellant Itaas and his six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9)
companions suddenly fired at the said car upon reaching years and six (6) months of prision mayor, as’ maximum.
the said place. Hence, the crime committed for the killing Appellant Continente, as accomplice, is hereby sentenced
of Col. James Rowe during the said ambush is murder. to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
The testimony of Meriam Zulueta does not suffer from any correccional, as maximum.
serious and material contradictions that can detract from
her credibility. The trial court accorded full faith and
credence to her said testimony. The defense failed to
adduce any evidence to establish any improper motive
that may have impelled the same witness to falsely testify PEOPLE v. ANTONIO
against the appellants. It is well-settled rule that the Murder/Homicide
evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is
received on appeal with the highest respect because such DOCTRINE:
court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on If treachery was alleged although not proven, the crime is
the stand and determine if they are telling the truth or not. only homicide under Art. 249 of the RPC.

ISSUE 2: WON appellants are guilty of frustrated murder for FACTS:

wounding Vinuya?  Nov. 1, 1996: Antonio, Tuadles and Debdani had
agreed to meet for a poker session. Debdani failed
HELD 2: NO. With respect to the liability of appellant Itaas to appear so Antonio and Tuadles decided to play
for the wounding of Joaquin Vinuya, it appears that the said pusoy dos. They stopped playing at around 9am on
victim sustained injuries on his scalp, on the left shoulder and Nov. 2, 1996.
on the back portion of the left hand from the ambush. Under  An argument arose when they were tallying their
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, a felony scores and collect the winnings from the loser.
is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of o Prosecution: In the course of an argument,
execution which would produce the felony as a without warning or cause, Antonio pulled
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by his gun from behind his back and shot
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Tuadles at very close range, thus
The evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the employing treacherous means to
opinion of Dr. Jose Santiago in his testimony, is not sufficient accomplish the nefarious deed.
to establish the crime of frustrated murder. This Court notes o Defense: In the middle of a heated
that the wounds sustained by the victim are not fatal wounds altercation where they traded expletives,
but merely superficial wounds. The records disclose that Tuadles suddenly grabbed Antonio’s gun
Joaquin Vinuya managed to drive the car of Col. Rowe from atop a sidetable. Fearing for his life,
toward the JUSMAG Compound which is 200 meters away Antonio claimed that he reached for
from the site of the ambush.It also appears that Vinuya was Tuadles’ hand and they grappled for
treated for his wounds for only four (4) days at the Clark Air possession of the gun. A shot was fired and
Base Hospital in Pampanga after which he was brought Tuadles fell face down to the floor, and
back to the JUSMAG Compound in Quezon City to Antonio was left too stunned to recall who
recuperate. Hence, the crime committed as against him is had actually pulled the trigger. Antonio
only attempted murder. alleged that the shooting was accidental
and his only motivation was to defend
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial himself.
Court, Branch 88, in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-89-4843 and Q-  Antonio convinced 2 security guards, prosecution
89-4844 is hereby MODIFIED, as follows: witness SG Bobis included, to accompany him to his
home and then the San Juan Police Station. They
In Criminal Case No. Q-89-4843, appellants Juanito Itaas remained in Antonio’s house for several hours
and Donato Continente are found GUILTY beyond during which Antonio made phone calls and
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, as principal and summoned his lawyer.
  Antonio then placed himself and his gun in the 2 sworn statements and in his court
custody of San Juan Mayor Estrada and the police testimony. He cannot be impeached as an
authorities. eyewitness.
 An information was filed against Antonio for the
crime of murder. Also charged as accessories were ISSUE: Whether or not Antonio acted in self-defense.
SPO4 Nieto and SPO1 Catalla Jr.
o Arraignment: SPO1 Cartalla Jr entered a HELD:
plea of not guilty. SPO4 Nieto and Antonio No, there was no unlawful aggression and as such, there
refused to enter a plea so the trial court was no self-defense
entered a plea of not guilty for both of  In his testimony, Antonio alleged that Tuadles
them. committed an act of aggression when Tuadles
 Trial ensued and all three accused were found grabbed the gun against him, so he grappled with
guilty as charged. All of them filed separate Tuadles to prevent the latter from shooting him.
appeals. Even if Tuadles had grabbed the gun, it could very
well have been that Tuadles intended to keep the
gun away from appellant to prevent the latter from
ISSUE: Whether or not SG Bobis is a credible eyewitness. using it against him considering the state of mind
and the foul mood Antonio was in .
HELD:
Yes, although he had given 2 contradicting sworn ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of
statements, the court did not impeach him as an voluntary surrender should be appreciated.
eyewitness.
 In his 1st sworn statement, he averred that he did not HELD:
see the actual shooting since he was still ascending Yes, there is no dispute that Antonio voluntarily surrendered
the stairs leading to the 2nd floor where the crime to the mayor, a person in authority, before he was arrested.
took place when he heard the gunshot.  He had not been actually arrested, he surrendered
 In his 2nd sworn statement, he negated his earlier himself to a person in authority and his surrender
statement saying that he had indeed seen Antonio was voluntary.
pull his gun from behind and with neither warning
nor provocation, aimed the gun at the head of ISSUE: Whether or not the shooting of Tuadles was attended
Tuadles and shot him point-blank. This was also the with treachery.
testimony he gave in court
 It is a matter of judicial experience that affidavits or HELD:
statements taken ex parte are generally No, for there to be treachery, there must be a conscious
considered incomplete and inaccurate. By nature, and deliberate adoption of the mode of attack for a
they are inferior to testimony given in court, and specific purpose on top of the fact that there was a swift
whenever there is inconsistency between the and sudden attack.
affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the  All the evidence shows that the incident was an
testimony commands greater weight. Moreover, impulse killing and that it was a spur of the moment
inconsistencies between the affidavit and the crime.
testimony of a witness in court, the testimony  It is not enough that the means methods, or form of
commands greater weight. execution of the offense was without danger to the
o Trial court followed precedents in giving offender arising from the defense or retaliation that
more credence to SG Bobis’ testimony might be made by the offended party. It is further
given in open court despite his having required, for treachery to be appreciable, that
executed an earlier statement which was such means, method or form was deliberated upon
inconsistent with his testimony. or consciously choice was held non-existent where
 Bobis’ reason why he was moved to give false the attack was the product of an impulse of the
testimony was that Antonio warned him after the moment.
incident by saying “ikaw huwag kang tumestigo  It was Antonio’s sudden anger and heated passion
ha” and that he was coerced to go to Antonio’s which drove him to pull his gun and shoot Tuadles.
house where Antonio and his lawyer instructed him Said passion cannot co-exist with treachery.
to say that what happened was only an accident o In passion, the offender loses his reason
should police asked him what happened. and control. In treachery, the means
 SC has uniformly held that previous statements employed is adopted consciously and
cannot serve as basis for impeaching the credibility deliberately.
of a witness unless his attention was 1st directed to o One who, in the heat of passion, loses his
the discrepancies and he was the given an reason and self-control, cannot
opportunity to explain them. It is only when no consciously employ a particular means,
reasonable explanation is given by a witness in method or form of attack in the execution
reconciling his conflicting declarations that he of the crime.
should be deemed impeached.
o No reason to discredit the trial court’s ISSUE: Whether or not Antonio can be convicted of murder.
finding that SG Bobis sufficiently explained
the conflicting declarations he made in his
HELD: No, he may only be convicted of the lesser crime of o He then continued driving until upon
homicide under Art. 249 of the RPC. noticing that he was being followed by the
 Although treachery was alleged in the information police, he stopped and surrendered.
and favorably considered by the trial court, it was  TRIAL COURT – He was convicted of Homicide with
not proven by convincing evidence. Since Less Serious Physical Injuries.
treachery was not present, the crime was not  On appeal, CA modified the conviction to Murder
qualified into murder. with Less Serious Physical Injuries, because it was
found that what was used by Enguito to kill Wilfredo
was a motor vehicle.
PEOPLE V. ENGUITO o Enguito contested this and saying that he
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS - MURDER should have been afforded two mitigating
circs, passion and voluntary surrender.
FACTS: o Further, he alleged that it was not his
 This was a case convicting Enguito of murder for intention to kill Wilfredo and injure Felipe
ramming his Kia Ceres pick-up to a motorela (motor and Rorsita, for he just wanted to chase
na karitela, yung sa probinsya na tricycle epro Wilfredo and bring him to the police for
mukhang maliit na jeep), which caused the death mauling him.
of Engr. Wilfredo Achumbre and the injuring of 2
others. ISSUE: WON Enguito is guilty of murder for using a motor
 PROSECUTION’s version. It was narrated by the vehicle. (YES)
driver Felipe and wife Rosita together with the
police officers present in the scene that: HELD:
o Around 3am of Sept 22, 1991, Felipe and No intention to kill was devoid of merit. The defense
Rosita had a passenger name Wilfredo disregards the basic rule in criminal law that a person is
Achumbre. While driving, their motorela responsible for all the consequences of his unlawful or
was rammed by a speeding car. It pushed wrongful act although such consequences were different
the motorela for a long distance until it from those which he originally intended. Even if it be
turned-turtle injuring everybody inside. assumed that the real intention of accused-Enguito was to
o Wilfredo Wilfredo, stood up and tried to run. surrender Wilfredo to the police for mauling him, his act of
But he was ran over to death by Enguito. pursuing Wilfredo, who was a passenger of the motorela,
o The police started a chase which lead to resulted in the injuries of the driver and the other passenger
the arrest of Enguito when the latter of the motorela.
crashed in the highway railings and
surrendered. It was also testified by the The indictment against accused-Enguito is murder
police officers that there were blood marks attended by the use of motor vehicle. The use of a motor
in the road together with bits of human vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was
flesh. perpetrated by means thereof. Enguito's claim that he
o The next day, the wife of Wilfredo merely used the motor vehicle, Kia Ceres van, to stop
confronted Enguito and asked the latter Wilfredo from escaping is belied by his actuations. By his
why he had done so heartless of an act. own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile
Enguito simply replied saying “I had to do patrol near the crossing. Accused-Enguito could have easily
it, look at my face” sought the assistance of the police instead of taking the law
 DEFENSE’s version. Enguito alleged that his actions into his own hands. Moreover, accused-Enguito already
was to surrender Wilfredo Wilfredo to the police. noticed the deceased trying to jump out of the motorela
o Enguito and Wilfredo were co-employees but he still continued his pursuit. He did not stop the vehicle
and were good friends. Until one night, after hitting the deceased who was hit when he
while Enguito drove Wilfredo home (Achumbre) was at the railing of the Marcos bridge.
because the latter was drunk. At the Accused-Enguito further used the vehicle in his attempt to
crossroad on the way to Wilfredo’s home, escape. He was already more than one (1) kilometer away
Wilfredo refused to go home, and insisted from the place of the incident that he stopped his vehicle
that they eat bulalo. But Enguito refused upon seeing the police mobile patrol which was following
and insisted that he wanted to go home. him.
Wilfredo started mauling him and left him
unconscious. Enguito contends that he should have been convicted of
o When he regained consciousness, he saw the crime of homicide with two (2) mitigating circumstances
Wilfredo riding a motorela. He followed this of acting in passion and voluntary surrender; and had the
in order to surrender Wilfredo to the police. charge been homicide he could have pleaded guilty. We
o He then rammed the Motorola. After some find that these mitigating circumstances cannot be
distance, when the motorela was about to appreciated in his favor. Accused-Enguito was allegedly
turn-turtle – Wilfredo jumped out of it. "still very angry"[19] while he was following, bumping and
Enguito alleged that he tried to apply the pushing the motorela which was in front of him. He was
breaks but said everything was too sudden. previously mauled by the deceased and he was allegedly
In trying to avoid Wilfredo he hit the railings rendered unconscious by the blows inflicted on him. When
causing the shattering of the windshield. he regained consciousness, he claims that he wanted to
look for a policeman to report that he was mauled. Clearly,
accused-Enguito's state of mind after he was mauled and gun and fired at him. Chapman felt his upper body,
before he crushed Achumbre to death was such that he staggered for a moment, and asked: “Why did you shoot
was still able to act reasonably. In fact, he admitted having me?” Chapman crumpled on the sidewalk. Leino knelt
seen a police mobile patrol nearby but instead, he chose to beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to
resort to the dastardly act which resulted in the death of get up and leave Chapman alone. Accused then turned
Achumbre and in the injuries of the spouses Requerme. For his ire on Leino. He pointed gun at him and asked: “Do you
passion to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, want a trouble?” Leino said “no” and took a step
facts must be proved to show causes sufficient to produce backward.
loss of self-control and to overcome reason. The turmoil and
unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should The shooting initially shocked Maureen. When she came to
not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the her senses, she became hysterical and started screaming
mind of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to for help. She repeatedly shouted: “Oh, my God, he’s got a
deprive him of his sanity and self-control. gun. He’s gonna kill us. Will somebody help us?” All the while,
accused was pointing his gun to and from Leino to
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot Maureen, warning the latter to shut up. Accused ordered
be appreciated. Evidence shows that accused-Enguito was Leino to sit down on the sidewalk. Leino obeyed and made
further pursued by the police. Enguito himself testified that no attempt to move away. Accused stood 2-3 meters away
he stopped his vehicle just after the police mobile stopped from him. Maureen continued to be hysterical. She could
but admitted having "stopped farther than the police not stay still. She strayed to the side of accused’s car.
mobile". SPO3 Catiil further testified that Enguito did not Accused tried but failed to grab her. Maureen circled
surrender but only stopped his vehicle when its right tire was around accused’s car, trying to put some distance
already flat. His testimony was corroborated by PO3 between them. The short chase lasted for a minute or two.
Makiling who was patrolling the portion of Marcos Bridge. Eventually, accused caught Maureen and repeatedly
He testified that he saw the vehicle being driven by enjoined her to shut up and sit down beside Leino. Maureen
accused-Enguito already destroyed and the right portion of finally sat beside Leino on the sidewalk.
the vehicle a little bit lower as it was running flat.[25] Clearly,
accused-Enguito could have eluded arrest but his situation
For a moment, the accused turned his back from the two.
became futile when his vehicle suffered a flat tire.
He faced them again and shot Leino. Leino was hit on the
upper jaw, fell backwards on the sidewalk, but did not lose
The foregoing notwithstanding, the existence or non-
consciousness. Leino heard another shot and saw Maureen
existence of a mitigating circumstance in the case at bar
fall beside him. He lifted his head to see what was
will not affect the penalty to be imposed pursuant to Article
happening and saw accused return to his car and drive
63 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime committed by
away. Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. He
accused-Enguito is the complex crime of murder with less
noticed at least 3 people who saw the incident.
serious physical injuries.

CA AFFIRMED As a result of the incident, 3 separate criminal cases were

filed against accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Initially, he
was charged with: MURDER for the killing of ROLAND
CHAPMAN, and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for the
shooting and wounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN
PEOPLE VS TEEHANKEE
HULTMAN. When Hultman subsequently died after 97 days
of confinement at the hospital and during the course of the
FACTS: In 1991, Jussi Olavi Leino was taking Maureen trial, the Information for Frustrated Murder was amended to
Hultman to her home at Campanilla Street, Dasmarinas MURDER.
Village, Makati. Roland John Chapman went with them.
When they entered the village, Maureen asked Leino to
The defense: Accused relied on the defense of denial and
stop about a block away from her house, as she wanted to
alibi. Accused claimed that during the shooting incident, he
walk the rest of the way for she did not want her parents to
was not anywhere near the scene of the crime, but in his
know that she was going home that late. Leino offered to
house in Pasig. Accused averred that he only came to know
walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car and listened
the 3 victims in the Dasmarinas shooting when he read the
to the radio.
newspaper reports about it. Accused admitted ownership
of a box-type, silver metallic gray Mitsubishi Lancer, with
While Leino and Maureen were walking, a light-colored plate number PDW 566. He, however, claimed that said car
Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car, driven by accused Claudio ceased to be in good running condition after its
Teehankee, Jr., came up from behind them and stopped involvement in an accident. Until the day of the shooting,
on the middle of the road. Accused alighted from his car, his Lancer car had been parked in the garage of his
approached them, and asked: “Who are you? (Show me mother’s house in Dasmarinas Village. He has not used this
your) I.D.” When Leino handed his I.D., the accused car since then. Accused conceded that although the car
grabbed and pocketed the I.D., without bothering to look was not in good running condition, it could still be used.
at it.

Chapman saw the incident. He stepped down on the

sidewalk and asked accused: “Why are you bothering us?”
Accused pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt, pulled out a
HELD: Proof beyond reasonable doubt that said car was towed because the NBI could not get its
ignition key which was then in the possession of the
According to the the accused, the trial court erred in not accused. Clearly, the car was towed not because it was not
holding that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt in running condition. Even the accused’s evidence show
beyond reasonable doubt. First, he claims the trial court that said car could run. After its repairs, the accused’s son,
erred in citing in its Decision his involvement in previous Claudio Teehankee III, drove it from the repair shop in
shooting incidents. Second, the NBI failed to conduct an Banawe, Quezon City to Dasmarinas Village, in Makati,
examination to compare the bullets fired from the gun at where it was parked.
the scene of the crime with the bullets recovered from the
body of Chapman. Third, the prosecution eyewitnesses Nor was the SC impressed by the alleged discrepancies in
described the gunman’s car as white, but the trial court the eyewitnesses’ description of the color of the gunman’s
found it to be silver metalic gray. Fourth, the accused could car. Leino described the car as light-colored; Florece said
not have been the gunman, for Mangubat said that he the car was somewhat white (“medyo puti”); Mangubat
overheard the victim Hultman plead to the gunman, thus: declared the car was white; and Cadenas testified it was
“Please, don’t shoot me and don’t kill me. I promise silver metallic gray. These alleged discrepancies amount to
Mommy, Daddy.” The accused also contends that a maid no more than shades of differences and are not
in a house near the scene of the crime told Makati police meaningful, referring as they do to colors white, somewhat
Alberto Fernandez that she heard Maureen say: “Daddy white and silver metallic gray. Considering the speed and
don’t shoot. Don’t.” Fifth, the NBI towed accused’s car from shocking nature of the incident which happened before the
Dasmarinas Village to the NBI office which proved that the break of dawn, these slight discrepancies in the description
same was not in good running condition. Lastly, the result of of the car do not make the prosecution eyewitnesses
the paraffin test conducted on appellant showed he was unworthy of credence.
negative of nitrates.
The accused’s attempt to pin the crimes at bar on Anders
The accused points to other possible suspects, viz:. ANDERS Hultman, the adoptive father of Maureen Hultman,
HULTMAN, since one of the eyewitnesses was quoted in the deserves scant consideration. The accused cites a
newspapers as having overheard Maureen plead to the newspaper item where Maureen was allegedly overheard
gunman: “Huwag, Daddy.”; and, (b) JOSE MONTANO, as saying to the gunman: “Huwag, Daddy. Huwag, Daddy.”
another resident of Dasmarinas Village, who had a white The evidence on record, however, demonstrates that
Lancer car, also bearing license plate number 566. Anders Hultman could not have been the gunman. It was
clearly established that Maureen could not have uttered
The accused, however, cannot hope to exculpate himself said statement for two (2) reasons: Maureen did not speak
simply because the trial judge violated the rule on res inter Tagalog, and she addressed Anders Hultman as “Papa,”
alios acta when he considered his involvement in previous not “Daddy.” Moreover, Leino outrightly dismissed this
shooting incidents. This rule has long been laid to rest. The suspicion. While still in the hospital and when informed that
harmless error rule is also followed in our jurisdiction. In the Makati police were looking into this possibility, Leino
dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, the court flatly stated that Anders Hultman was NOT the gunman.
examines its damaging quality and its impact to the Leino is a reliable witness.
substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and
insignificant, the court disregards the error as it will not The accused cannot also capitalize on the paraffin test
overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence showing he was negative of nitrates. Scientific experts
against the prejudiced party. concur in the view that the paraffin test has “. . . proved
extremely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can
In the case at bar, the reference by the trial judge to reports definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or
about the troublesome character of appellant is a harmless nitrites on the hand. It cannot be established from this test
error. The reference is not the linchpin of the inculpatory alone that the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the
evidence appreciated by the trial judge in convicting the discharge of a firearm. The person may have handled one
accused. As aforestated, the accused was convicted or more of a number of substances which give the same
mainly because of his identification by 3 eyewitnesses with positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives,
high credibility. fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants
such as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who uses
tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his
The NBI may have also failed to compare the bullets fired
hands since these substances are present in the products of
from the fatal gun with the bullets found at the scene of the
combustion of tobacco.” In numerous rulings, we have also
crime. The omission, however, cannot exculpate the
recognized several factors which may bring about the
accused. The omitted comparison cannot nullify the
absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of a
evidentiary value of the positive identification of the
gunman, viz: when the assailant washes his hands after firing
accused.
the gun, wears gloves at the time of the shooting, or if the
direction of a strong wind is against the gunman at the time
There is also little to the contention of the accused that his of firing. In the case at bar, NBI Forensic Chemist, Leonora
Lancer car was not in running condition. Allegedly, this was Vallado, testified and confirmed that excessive perspiration
vicariously proved when the NBI towed his car from or washing of hands with the use of warm water or vinegar
Dasmariñas Village where it was parked to the NBI office. may also remove gunpowder nitrates on the skin. She
Again, the argument is negated by the records which show likewise opined that the conduct of the paraffin test after
more than seventy-two (72) hours from the time of the Maureen became hysterical and wandered to the side of
shooting may not lead to a reliable result for, by such time, appellant’s car. When the accused went after her,
the nitrates could have already been removed by washing Maureen moved around his car and tried to put some
or perspiration. In the Report on the paraffin test conducted distance between them. After a minute or two, the accused
on appellant, Forensic Chemist Elizabeth Ayonon noted that got to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on the
when the accused was tested for the presence of nitrates, pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy,
more than 72 hours has already lapsed from the time of the the two were gunned down by the accused . Clearly, the
alleged shooting. accused purposely placed his two victims in a completely
defenseless position before shooting them. There was an
The presence of treachery appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman
and the shooting of Leino and Hultman – a period which the
accused used to prepare for a mode of attack which
The accused claims that treachery was not present in the
ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself.
killing of Hultman and Chapman, and the wounding of
Leino for it was not shown that the gunman consciously and
deliberately adopted particular means, methods and forms
in the execution of the crime. The accused asserts that mere
suddenness of attack does not prove treachery. PEOPLE VS. MANERO
FACTS:
On 11 April 1985, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto
The 3 Informations charged the accused with having
and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia, SeverinoLines, Rudy
committed the crimes with treachery and evident
Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño, were inside the
premeditation. Evident premeditation was correctly ruled
eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades. They were
out by the trial court for, admittedly, the shooting incident
conferring with three others of a plan to liquidate a number
was merely a casual encounter or a chance meeting on the
of suspected communist sympathizers. Among their targets
street since the victims were unknown to the accused
are: Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene
and vice-versa. It, however, appreciated the presence of
alias Tabagac and Villaning.
the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of
On the other hand, the prosecution failed to prove having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino
treachery in the killing of Chapman. Prosecution witness Robles, a Catholiclay leader who is the complaining witness
Leino established the sequence of events leading to the in the Attempted Murder; Domingo Gomez is another lay
shooting. He testified that for no apparent reason, the leader, while the others are simply "messengers".
accused suddenly alighted from his car and accosted him
and Maureen Hultman who were then walking along the On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto
sidewalk. Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter
Geremias, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead.
Appellant questioned who they were and demanded for They later on nailed a placard near the carinderia
an I.D. After Leino handed him his I.D., Chapman appeared bearing the names of their intended victims. Later, at 4:00
from behind Leino and asked what was going on. pm, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four
Chapman then stepped down on the sidewalk and inquired (4) appellants, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the
from appellant what was wrong. There and then, the house of "Bantil", their first intended victim, which was also in
accused pushed Chapman, pulled a gun from inside his the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia.
shirt, and shot him. The gun attack was unexpected. “Why
did you shoot me?” was all Chapman could utter. After a heated confrontation, Edilberto drew his revolver and
Concededly, the shooting of Chapman was carried out fired at the forehead of Bantil who was able to parry and
swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even was hit at the lower portion of his ear. Bantil tried to run but
then, there is no evidence on record to prove that the he was again fired upon by Edilberto. Though Bantil was
accused consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of able to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo
attack to insure the accomplishment of his criminal design Gomez, Norberto Jr. ordered his men to surround the house
without risk to himself. The accused acted on the spur of the so that Bantil would die of hemorrhage. Moments later,
moment. Their meeting was by chance. They were strangers while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed
to each other. The time between the initial encounter and him with a burst of gun fire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades
the shooting was short and unbroken. The shooting of cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands clenched at
Chapman was thus the result of a rash and impetuous the back of his head.
impulse on the part of the accused rather than a deliberate
act of will. Mere suddenness of the attack on the victim This again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from the
would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Hence, absent any dreaded desperados. At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived
qualifying circumstance, the accused should only be held at Km.125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the house
liable for Homicide for the shooting and killing of Chapman. of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused
Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of
As to the wounding of Leino and the killing of Hultman, the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank,
treachery clearly attended the commission of the crimes. spilled some fuel, lit a fire and burned the motorcycle.
The evidence shows that after shooting Chapman in cold
blood, the accused ordered Leino to sit on the pavement.
As the vehicle was ablaze, the felons raved and rejoiced. singularity of purpose, and unity in its execution is present.
Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted While it may be true that Fr. Favali was not originally the
Norberto, Jr. But the latter simply stepped backwards and intended victim, as it was Fr. Peter Geremias whom the
executed a thumbs-down signal. At this point, Edilberto group targetted for the kill, nevertheless, Fr. Favali was
asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you deemed a good substitute in the murder as he was an
want, Father)? Gusto mo, Father, bukon koang ulo mo (Do Italian priest. The accused agreed that in case they fail to
you want me, Father, to break your head)?" Thereafter, in a kill the intended victims, it will be suffice to kill another priest
flash, Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. as long as the person is also Italian priest.

As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, his hands clasped

against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that was PEOPLE v. MARAMARA
the only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
remark, Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3)
times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire DOCTRINE: Assuming that a rumble or a free-for-all fight
virtually shattered the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to occurred at the benefit dance, Article 251 of the Revised
scatter on the road. As Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to Penal Code cannot apply because prosecution witnesses
the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ricardo and Regarder Donato positively identified
Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comrades-in-arms who accused-appellant as Miguelito Donatos killer.
now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from
possible assistance. FACTS:
 On January 23, 1992, 4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Romeo C. Sampaga filed with the Regional Trial Court
Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño an information or murder against accused-appellant,
appealedwith respect to the cases for Murder and alleging:
Attempted Murder. The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo o The said accused, with intent to kill, evident
Espia did not appeal; neither did Norberto Manero, Jr., in premeditation, treachery and taking
the Arson case. Consequently, the decision as against them advantage of nighttime, did then and there
already became final. wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot with a handgun one
Issue: Whether or not the appellants can be exculpated Miguelito Donato, hitting the latter on the
from criminal liability on the basis of defense of alibi which chest, thereby inflicting wound which caused
would establish that there is no conspiracy to kill. his death.
 At his arraignment on March 25, 1992, accused-
Held: The court did not appreciate the defense of alibi of appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial
the Lines brother, who according to them, were in a farm commenced thereafter.
some 1km away from the crime scene. The court held that  The prosecutions version of the killing of Miguelito
―It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of Donato, as culled from the testimonies of his younger
alibi must not only be at some other place but that it must brother Ricardo Donato and father Regarder Donato, is
also be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of as follows:
the crime at the time of its commission. o A benefit dance sponsored by the Calpi
Elementary School Parents-Teachers
There is no physical impossibility where the accused can be Association of which accused-appellant is the
at the crime scene in a matter of 15-20 minutes by jeep or president, was held in the yard of accused-
tricycle. More important, it is well-settled that the defense of appellants house in Barangay Calpi, Claveria,
alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the Masbate in the evening of November 18, 1991.
authors of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. In this o At about 12 midnight, while Ricardo Donato
case, there were two eyewitnesses who positively identified was dancing with a certain Rowena del
the accused. Contrary to the claim of the Lines brothers, Rosario, one Dante Arce, a friend of accused-
there is a community of design to commit the crime. Based appellant, approached Ricardo Donato and
on the findings of the lower court, they are not merely boxed him on the chest. Frightened, Rowena
innocent bystanders but in fact were vital cogs in the ran away while Ricardo Donato scampered
murder of Fr. Fuvali. toward the fence for safety.
o Miguelito Donato was about two (2) meters
They performed overt acts to ensure the success of the away from where Ricardo Donato stayed at
commission of the crimes and the furtherance of the aims the fence. Not for long, accused-appellant
of the conspiracy. While accused-appellants may not took his handgun tucked in his waist and fired
have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective at victim Miguelito Donato, hitting the latter on
action showed a common intent to commit the criminal the left breast. Ricardo Donato tried to help his
acts. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come fallen brother Miguelito but somebody struck
to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit Ricardos head with an iron bar which knocked
it. him out for about three (3) minutes. When
Ricardo regained consciousness, he hurried
It is not essential that all the accused commit together each home and informed his parents of what
and every act constitutive of the offense. It is enough that happened to their son Miguelito.
an accused participates in an act or deed where there is
 Regarder Donato, Miguelitos father, immediately went  There is no merit in accused-appellants position that he
to the crime scene and rushed Miguelito to the Pio should be held liable only for death caused in a
Duran Hospital where the latter died early in the tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal
morning of the next day (November 19, 1991). Before Code. It was in such situation that accused came at the
Miguelito expired, Regarder Donato asked who shot scene and joined the fray purportedly to pacify the
him and Miguelito replied that it was accused- protagonists when Miguelito attacked him causing four
appellant. (4) stab wounds in different parts of his body, two on the
 Dr. Nora L. Presbitero conducted a post-mortem stomach, one on the left nipple, and one on the left
examination of Miguelitos cadaver and his autopsy and arm. Then accused-appellant with his handgun shot
his autopsy report revealed that aside from a gunshot Miguelito.
wound, Miguelitos body bore a 4 cm. lacerated wound  Assuming that a rumble or a free-for-all fight occurred
at the left temporal area, a 4 cm. incised wound at the at the benefit dance, Article 251 of the Revised Penal
left parietal area and a 5.5 cm. incised wound at the Code cannot apply because prosecution witnesses
right iliac area. Dr. Presbitero explained that the three Ricardo and Regarder Donato positively identified
(3) wounds were caused by blunt and sharp instruments accused-appellant as Miguelito Donatos killer.
and considered the possibility that all four (4) wounds  While accused-appellant himself suffered multiple stab
could have been inflicted by more than two (2) wounds which, at first blush, may lend verity to his claim
persons. She also testified that accused-appellant was that a rumble ensued and that victim Miguelito inflicted
formerly her patient whom she diagnosed as suffering upon him these wounds, the evidence is inadequate to
from empyema. consider them as a mitigating circumstance because
 The defense had a different story. At about 11:00 in the the defenses version stands discredited in light of the
evening, brothers Ricardo and Miguelito Donato arrived more credible version of the prosecution as to the
at the benefit dance and approached the dancing circumstances surrounding Miguelitos death.
pair of Rowena del Rosario and Dante Arce. Then  We do not subscribe, however, to the trial courts
Ricardo and Miguelito ganged-up on Dante Arce. appreciation of treachery which, we note, was
o Accused-appellant, who was about eight (8) discussed only in the dispositive portion of the decision
meters away, rushed to the scene to pacify the and which was based solely on the fact that appellant
trio. Ricardo held accused-appellants hands at used a firearm in killing the victim Miguelito Donato. The
his back and then Miguelito repeatedly use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of
stabbed accused-appellant on different parts treachery. In the absence of any convincing proof that
of his body. Accused-appellant regained accused-appellant consciously and deliberately
consciousness at the Claveria hospital where adopted the means by which he committed the crime
Dr. Gil Georga treated him for a few days, then in order to ensure its execution, the Court must resolve
transferred him to the Pio Duran Hospital. the doubt in favor of accused-appellant. And where
o There was no way accused-appellant could treachery is not adequately proved, the accused-
have resisted Miguelitos attack, much less was appellant can be convicted only of homicide.
he capable of inflicting injury on Miguelito,
 As accused-appellant is liable for homicide, it is the
since the stronger Ricardo was holding
penalty for homicide that shall be imposed. The penalty
accused-appellants hands and was dragging
prescribed for homicide is reclusion temporal. There
him away while Miguelito kept lunging a six-
was attendant neither mitigating nor aggravating
inch bladed weapon at him.
circumstance so that the prescribed penalty
 Dr. Gil Georga testified he attended to accused-
of reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium
appellant at the Claveria Hospital in the early morning
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
of November 19, 1991. Accused-appellant suffered four
accused-appellant may be sentenced to an
(4) penetrating stab wounds on different parts of his
indeterminate penalty within the range of the penalty
body--two on the stomach, one on the left nipple and
next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense,
one on the left arm. Dr. Georga had to open accused-
that is, prision mayor, as the minimum, and within the
appellants abdomen (exploratory laparatomy) to
range of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the
determine what internal organs were
maximum.
affected. Although he was accused-appellants
attending physician, Dr. Georga never asked the details
 As to the damages awarded, the trial court erred in
awarding moral damages in lieu of civil
of the stabbing incident nor the identity of assailant, as
indemnity. Moral damages may not be awarded if
he was purely concerned with the treatment of
there is no legal basis therefor. Nor it may be imposed in
accused-appellants injuries.
substitution of civil indemnity. The two awards one for
 RTC= On the basis of the prosecutions reconstruction of
actual damages and the other for moral damages
the events that transpired on that tragic night of
cannot be dealt with in the aggregate; neither being
November 18, 1991, on May 27, 1993, the trial court
kindred terms nor governed by a coincident set of rules,
rendered a guilty verdict. Hence, this appeal.
each must be separately identified and independently
justified. Consequently, the amount of P50,000.00
ISSUE: WON accused appellant should be held liable only
awarded by the trial court as moral damages must be
for the death of Miguelito Donato in a tumultuous affray as
considered as civil indemnity.
defined under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code. (NO.)
 SC= Court hereby MODIFIES the judgment appealed
HELD: from. The Court finds accused-appellant Cresenciano
Maramara guilty beyond reasonable of homicide,
 defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised  Hence this appeal urging that the crime they
Penal Code, for the killing of Miguelito Donato without committed is Death caused in a tumultuous affray
the attendance of any modifying and should not be Murder.
circumstance. Accordingly, the Court hereby
SENTENCES accused-appellant Cresenciano ISSUE:
Maramara to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten Whether or not the crime should be death in tumultuous
(10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen affray
(17) years, and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, with all its accessory penalties, and to pay HELD:
the heirs of Miguelito Donato in the amount NO, the crime in this case is Murder. Death in a tumultuous
of P10,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as affray is established by the following requisites:
death indemnity. 1. There be several persons
2. They did not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
SISON, et al v. PEOPLE other reciprocally
Crimes Against Persons – Death caused in a tumultuous 3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one
affray another in confused and tumultuous manner
4. Someone was killed in the course of affray
DOCTRINE: 5. Cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
There can be death caused in tumultuous affray such as in deceased
this case because there was no quarrel or confusion 6. The person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries or
between several persons at the time death of the victim who used violence can be identified
occurred.
IN THIS CASE, there is no tumultuous affray from which the
FACTS: accused can be convicted of “death in a tumultuous
 This case was set during the aftermath of the 1986 affray”. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
EDSA Revolution where the newly-installed occurs between several persons and they engage in a
government of Cory Aquino was challenged by confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which
rallies, demonstrations by Marcos loyalists. some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof
 Some time in July 1986, a rally was scheduled to be cannot be ascertained.
held in Luneta by the Marcos loyalists led by Lozano
and Nuega, both IBP members. Lozano and Nuega The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel,
instructed about 3,000 rallyist “gulpihin ninyo lahat was between one distinct group and one individual.
ng Cory infiltrators”. However the crowd fled Confusion may have occurred because of the police
towards Maria Orosa when they were dispersed by dispersal of the rallyists, but this confusion subsided
police officers. eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa Street.
 While the small group of loyalists converged at It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct
Chinese Garden, Luneta they agreed to “gulpihin group identified as loyalists picked on one defenseless
lahat ng Cory hecklers”, “bugbuging ang mga individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in
nakadilaw”, “kailangan gumanti tayo ngayon” inflicting punches, kicks and blows on him.
 Thereupon, testimonies by the cigarette vendor There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray,
and photographs taken by the press revealed the nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the
loyalists’ chased a man in yellow (Salcedo) whom incident.
they mauled, beaten, and boxed to death using
their fists with stone. Salcedo was able to flee to
Roxas blvd but he was pursued by the loyalists and
brought to Rizal Monument and there he collapsed DADO V PEOPLE
to death. TOPIC: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
*Order of mauling juts in case itanong:
1st all of them altogether DOCTRINE: Animus interficendi must be established with the
2nd Bilosilos emerging from behind Sumilang (one same degree of certainty as is required of the other
who tried to help Salcedo) and boxed Slacedo on elements of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should
head not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to
3rd Delos Santos boxed and kicked prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.
4th Tan boxed on his left side and ear
5th Pacadar punched on nape then lunged at the FACTS:
victim againt  Dado and Eraso were charged with murder.
6th Tamayo boxed on left jaw and kicked Information alleged that:
7th Sison tripped Sacledo and kicked on head then “That in the evening of May 25, 1992, at Sitio Paitan,
repeatedly boxed him Barangay Sagasa, Municipality of Esperanza, Province
 The implicated: Sison, Bilosos, Tan, Pacadar, of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
Tamayo, and Neri, are charged them all as of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with
principals to MURDER qualified by treachery. firearms, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation
Convicted thereof by the LC. and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
 Convicts appealed but CA affirmed. and feloniously, attack, assault and shot one SILVESTRE
 BALINAS with the use of the aforementioned weapons, ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of homicide instead of
thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which discharge of firearms only. NO
caused his instantaneous death. CONTRARY TO LAW,
particularly Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the HELD: The trial court found that a .45 caliber bullet will create
Philippines, with the aggravating circumstance of a bigger entrance wound as compared to a 5.56 mm. bullet
taking advantage of superior strength.” which is of a lower caliber. It concluded that the wound on
the inner thigh of the victim must have been caused by a
o On the night of May 25, 1992, the Esperanza, .45 caliber bullet because said wound had a bigger
Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed three entrance than the wound sustained by the victim on the
teams to intercept cattle rustlers from Barangay right outer lateral arm. However, this conclusion is entirely
Laguinding, Sultan Kudarat. devoid of basis because no evidence was presented to
o The team, composed of petitioner SPO4 substantiate said conclusions. What is decisive is the result of
Geromino Dado and CAFGU members the Ballistic Examination conducted by NBI Ballistician Elmer
Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and Rufo Alga, D. Piedad, on the 3 metallic fragments recovered from the
waited behind a large dike at Sitio Paitan, fatal wound of the victim. Piedad found that one of said
Sultan Kudarat. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo Alga, fragments, marked SB-1, is a part of a copper jacket of a
who were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, caliber 5.56 mm. jacketed bullet and was fired through the
positioned themselves between petitioner, who barrel of a caliber 5.56 mm. firearm, and not a part of a .45
was armed with a caliber .45 pistol, and caliber bullet.
accused Francisco Eraso, who was carrying an
M16 armalite rifle. They were all facing Nevertheless, petitioner is not completely without liability.
southwards in a half-kneeling position and were The Court sustains the finding of the trial court that petitioner
about 2 arms length away from each other. fired his .45 caliber pistol towards the victim. From the
o At around 11:00 of the same evening, the team attendant circumstances, it appears that there is no
saw somebody approaching at a distance of evidence tending to prove that petitioner had animus
50 meters. Though it was a moonless night, they interficendi or intent to kill the victim. Note that the
noticed that he was half- naked. When he was prosecution witnesses did not see whether petitioner aimed
about 5 meters away from the team, Alfredo to kill the victim. Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn
Balinas noticed that Francisco Eraso, who was from the mere fact that the use of firearms is dangerous to
on his right side, was making some movements. life. Animus interficendi must be established with the same
Balinas told Eraso to wait, but before Balinas degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of
could beam his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn
armalite rifle at the approaching man. in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such
Immediately thereafter, petitioner, who was on intent beyond reasonable doubt.
the left side of Rufo Alga, fired a single shot from
his .45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted, Tay Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim,
Dolfo, ako ini, (Tay Dolfo, [this is] me) as he fell petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal
on the ground. discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal
o The victim turned out to be Silvestre Butsoy Code. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender
Balinas, the nephew of Alfredo Balinas and not discharges a firearm against or at another person; and (2)
the cattle rustler the team were ordered to that the offender has no intention to kill that person. Though
intercept. Repentant of what he did, accused the information charged the petitioner with murder, he
Eraso embraced Alfredo Balinas saying, Pare, could be validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an
this was not intentionally done and this was offense which is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful
merely an accident. killing of a person. Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance
 Dr. Rhodora T. Antenor testified that the fatal wound between the offense charged in the complaint or
that caused the death of the victim was the one information and that proved, and the offense as charged is
inflicted on the mid-inner thigh. The bullet pierced included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
through and injured the organs in the pelvic region accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
where she found three irregularly shaped metallic included in the offense charged, or the offense charged
fragments. which is included in the offense proved.
 NBI Ballistician concluded that the three metallic
fragments recovered from the fatal wound of the victim WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the June 26, 1997
turned out to be fragments of a 5.56 mm jacketed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 16886,
bullet. affirming the conviction of petitioner for the crime of
1. Evidence marked SB-1 is a part of a copper homicide is SET ASIDE and petitioner is ACQUITTED of the
jacket of a caliber 5.56mm jacketed bullet and crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. A new
was fired through the barrel of a caliber decision is entered finding petitioner Geronimo Dado guilty
5.56mm firearms. of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm and sentencing
2. Evidence marked SB-2 and SB-3 could be him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of
parts of the lead core of evidence copper arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11)
jacketed marked SB-1 months of prision correccional, as maximum.
GLORIA AGUIRRE V. SOJ, MICHELINA AGUIRE-OLONDRIZ, cause, he recommended the dismissal of the
PEDRO AGUIRRE, DR. AGATEP AND DR. PASCUAL complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
Crimes against Persons - Mutilation  Gloria then appealed the resolution to the SOJ via
Petition for Review  denied.
DOCTRINE:  She then went up to the CA via R65 petcert 
The cutting of the vas deferens does not divest or deny a denied. CA: the bilateral vasectomy performed on
man of any essential organ of reproduction for the simple Larry does not constitute mutilation even if
reason that it does not entail the taking away of a part or intentionally and purposely done to prevent him
portion of the male reproductive system. Thus this does not from siring a child. Sterilization is to be distinguished
amount to mutilation. from castration: in the latter act the reproductive
capacity is permanently removed or damaged.
FACTS:
 Laureano “Larry” Aguirre (victim) used to be a
charge of the Heart of Mary Villa, a child caring ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in ruling that the SOJ did not
agency run by the Good Shepherd Sisters. Sps. commit GADALEJ in dismissing the complaint (i.e., W/N a
Aguirre fell in love with him and eventually he vasectomy amounts to mutilation)?
became their ward.
 Sps. noticed that Larry’s developmental milestones Petitioner’s arguments:
were remarkably delayed (at 3yo, he could only 1) that vasectomy conducted on Larry was admitted;
crawl like a frog, didn’t speak sentences til 6, etc). 2) that the procedure caused the perpetual
 When he was 11, they took him to neurological and destruction of Larry’s reproductive organs of
psychological specialists and it was revealed that generation or conception;
he was suffering from a mild mental deficiency. 3) that the bilateral vasectomy was intentional and
 When Larry was 24, Sps. Aguirre brought him to Dr. deliberate to deprive Larry forever of his
Agatep to have him vasectomized (From gewgle: reproductive organ and his capacity to procreate;
A vasectomy blocks or cuts each vas deferens and that they made it to fraudulently appear in the
tube, keeping sperm out of your semen. Sperm cells psych report that Larry’s consent was obtained
stay in your testicles and are absorbed by your
body. They cut your sperm tube, basically). Respondents’ arguments:
 Dr. Agatep required him to be evaluated by a 1) OSG  the elements of castration or mutilation of
psychiatrist to confirm whether he could validly give an organ necessary for generation is completely
consent to the medical procedure absent as he was not deprived of any organ
 Thus Larry was brought to Dr. Pascual who issued a necessary for reproduction, much less the
psychiatry report. He determined that Larry, with his destruction of such organ.
mental capacity, may never understand the nature 2) Pedro  Gloria does not have the standing to file
and consequences of getting a vasectomy so the the complaint as she has not shown any injury to her
consent must come from a parent/guardian. person, merely alleging her relationship with Larry as
 So Pedro Aguirre (adoptive father) gave his written his “common law sister”
consent. 3) Dr. Agatep  there was no mutilation as a
 Petitioner Gloria Aguirre (Pedro’s eldest child) then vasectomy is merely the excision of the vas
filed a complaint for violation of Arts. 172 deferens, the tube that transports the semen.
(falsification of private document) and 262
(mutilation) in rel. to. RA 7610 (child abuse) for HELD: NO, a vasectomy does not amount to mutilation
intentional mutilation via bilateral vasectomy, with under the RPC.
the Office of the City Prosecutor of QC.
 Pedro counters that the vasectomy does not Art. 262. Mutilation.—The penalty of reclusion temporal to
amount to a mutilation because the reproductive reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who
organ remains intact. He also said that the shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either
procedure is actually reversible, via totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.
vasovasostomy, thus no permanent damage was
made. He further counters that he has parental Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision
authority over Larry. mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
 Dr. Agatep denied that he failed to inform Larry of
the intended procedure or that he performed Elements:
mutilation because “Vasectomy does not in any 1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of
way equate to castration and what is touched in organs necessary for generation
vasectomy is not considered an organ in the 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and
context of law and medicine, it is quite remote from deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party
the penis” of some essential organ for reproduction.
 Dr. Pascual also denied the charges, standing by
her findings in the psych report. The law intends to punish any person who shall intentionally
 Asst. City Prosecutor held that the facts alleged did deprive another of any organ necessary for reproduction.
not amount to mutilation as the vasectomy did not The vas deferens, the sperm tube, is the one that is cut, and
in any way deprive Larry of his reproductive organ it is not an organ. Even assuming arguendo that the tubular
which is still very much intact. Finding no probable passage can be considered an organ, the cutting of the
vas deferens does not divest or deny a man of any essential  Aggrieved, Li filed a petition for review, seeking the
organ of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not reversal of his conviction for the crime of homicide.
entail the taking away of a part or portion of the male
reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have been
tied, are then dropped back into the incision. ISSUE: Whether Li should be convicted for the crime of slight
physical injury instead of homicide?
Though, vasectomy denies a man his power of
reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, “either HELD: SC ruled in the affirmative. It ruled that the only injury
totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.” attributable to Li is the contusion on Arugay’s right arm that
Notably, the ordinary usage of the term “mutilation” is the resulted from Li striking Arugay with a baseball bat. In view
deprivation of a limb or essential part (of the body), with the of the victim’s supervening death from injuries which cannot
operative expression being “deprivation.” Castration is be attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of
defined as the removal of the testies or ovaries. Such being the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie
the case in this present petition, the bilateral vasectomy entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no
done on Larry could not have amounted to mutilation. evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for
PETITION DENIED. labor or of the required medical attendance, the offense is
only slight physical injuries.

LI v. PEOPLE SC stated that there were conflicting statements as to the

Crimes against Persons: Slight Physical Injuries testimonies of Tan and Aubrey with respect to the events
which transpired that fateful incident. Both of them testified
DOCTRINE: When there is no evidence of actual incapacity that Li stabbed Arugay on the left side of the body as the
of the offended party for labor or of the required medical latter was being pulled towards his house after having been
attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries. struck with the baseball bat. However, Tan testified that Li
came from behind Arugay to inflict the stab wound, while
FACTS: Petitioner Kingstone Li (Li) was charged before the Aubrey stated that Arugay was facing Li when he was
RTC of Makati with the crime of homicide for the death of stabbed. Considering that there was only one knife used
Christopher Arugay (Arugay). The prosecution alleged that and as per the established facts, her version would hold
Arugay was watching television at home with his sisters Cristy water only if it to be assumed that the same knife passed
and Baby Jane, his girlfriend Aubrey and Baby Jane’s from the hands of Li to Sangalang or that they held identical
boyfriend, Tan. or similar knives. As the RTC ruled, nothing of the sort was
 Suddenly, they heard a noise outside and peeking established. The more logical assumption would be that
through the window, they saw Li and a certain there was only one stabber using one knife.
Eduardo Sangalang (Sangalang) taking a bath
completely naked. There is the dubious claim of Tan and dela Camara that
 The two were facing the house of the Arugays. they did see Li stab Arugay once. Assuming this were true,
Enraged, Arugay shouted, “Pare bastos kayo, bat this blow would not have been the fatal stab wound, as it
kayo nakahubad?[“ to Li and Sangalang. Li did not prevent Arugay from further participating in the
shouted back and said, ”Putang Ina!”. Sangalang rumble and, as subsequently established, inflicting
shouted also and said, ”Putang Ina mo, lumabas damaging blows on Li. However, the physical evidence
ka, papatayin kita!” belies any conclusion that Li inflicted any of the several fatal
 An intensed Arugay went out of the house where wounds on Arugay.
he was met by Li carrying a baseball bat. Li struck
Arugay on the head with the bat, causing Arugay
to fall. Li ran back to his house.
 The witnesses Tan and Aubrey assisted Arugay and
were trying to drag him back to his house when Li
re-emerged, this time with a knife. Li then stabbed
Arugay once.
 Immediately thereafter, they were able to see
Sangalang stab Arugay at least once.

Petitioner Li denies killing Arugay. He contends that

he hit Arugay first with a baseball bat not on the head but
at the right arm which is near the shoulder. Li contended
that Arugay was armed with a bolo and retaliated by
hacking Li on the head, causing him to lose his hold on the
baseball bat and fell semi-unconscious or unconscious. In
such a condition, it is highly improbable that he was
capable of inflicting the fatal stab wounds on Arugay.

After trial, Li was found guilty and sentenced to the penalty

of 8 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor to 14 years, 8 months
and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal.
 His conviction was affirmed by CA.