PP v GALAPIA

Ilocos Norte
After their marriage, Eugenio (accused) and Leonida lived with the mother of Leonida.
Eugenio had a hard time living with his mother-in-law (MIL) that he left to live with his
own parents--only one km away.
One early evening, Eugenio felt a need for sexual fulfillment from his wife so he went to
MIL's house but was denied entry.
But he did not give up. He waited until everyone was asleep before he broke in the
house by breaking the jalousies of window.
The wife was repulsed by his advances so she threatened to stab him with a kitchen
knife. Husband was successful in grabbing the knife from his wife.
Coming to the aid of her daughter, MIL had a bolo yet the husband was successful in
wrenching the bolo and attacked his MIL, wife and the 2 young nephews of his wife.
The morning after, he surrendered to the authorities and signed and extrajudicial
confession admitting the killing of his wife, MIL and one nephew. (One nephew survived)
INSTEAD OF DEATH PENALTY, reclusion perpetua (for all three cases) was given
instead due to the offsetting of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Details
below.

1.Wife (original charge: parricide)
Aggravating: dwelling (Par 3 Art 14), unlawful entry (par 18 art 14)
Mitigating: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty (par 7 art 13)

2. MIL (original charge: murder)
*pero naa lay qualified abuse of superior strength
Aggravating: dwelling (Par 3 Art 14), unlawful entry (par 18 art 14)
Mitigating: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty (par 7 art 13)

3. Nephew (original charge: murder)
Aggravating: treachery kay he attacked when the victim was asleep (Par 16 Art 14), unlawful
entry (par 18 art 14)
Mitigating: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty (par 7 art 13)

PP v MONTEVERDE
Zamboanga City
At 1 am, spouses Tomas & Teresita said the apellant (Ronaldo Monteverde) and co-
accused (Reynaldo Codera) destroyed their window, pointed a gun at them and forced
them to open the door.
The perpetrators then hogtied Tomas and placed him under the bed. Teresita then was
raped thrice (twice by Rolando, once by Reynaldo)
At around 4 am, they ransacked the housed and left with valuables worth Php 300.00
with cash amounting to Php 15.00.
The spouses then reported to the police and identified the assilants.
In a sworn statement before the NBI, Reynaldo admitted that he and appellant planned
the robbery.
However, Reynaldo was not cross-examined because pending trial, he escaped.
Rolando put up alibi as his defense and claimed that he was elsewhere with relatives
and friends when the incident took place.
The court found the substantiated testimonies of the spouses credible, so they were both
sentenced to death.
The appellant, assails the spouses' credibility, and claims that the medical certificate
does not show signs of physical injuries and spermatozoa among others. The court
found no merit regarding their appeal.
The trial court properly appreciated recidivism as an aggravating circumstance although
not alleged in the information because the same was proved by evidence.
The lower court's decision was affirmed with the modification that due to the lack of the
necessary votes, the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

PP v CAETE & BILOG
Palawan
Jose (accused) and Douglas Bilog, brothers, were not in good terms due because
Douglas has a bigger share in their land inheritance.
Through the intercession of Mr. Aniceto Gamo, a Chief of Section in the Inagawan-Sub
Colony, Jose Bilog had allowed his farm to be worked by inmates.
In the past, Jose had unsuccessful attempts in killing his brother. He even tried to
implore the aid of inmates in his scheme.
One early evening, Douglas and Jose were drinking in the latter's hut. Later, 2 persons
arrived and joined the drinking party.
Adriano Caete arrived and sat beside Jose Bilog.
When everybody in the table was drunk, Jose drew a laring (weapon) and stabbed
Douglas at the front.Caete got hold of the knife and stabbed Douglas on the stomach.
Douglas tried to fight his killers with karate blows.
The two persons who arrived earlier helped Jose and Caete hit Douglas with a piece of
wood until Douglas fell dead and was dumped in the nearby canal.
Upon investigation, Caete readily admitted that he, together with Jose Bilog, Pedro
Macabihag and Ramon Dealogo killed Douglas Bilog.
Caete then surrendered the knife.
Caete gave another statement. This time he stated that only he and Jose Bilog had a
hand in the killing of Douglas.
It is worthy to note that Caete had been covicted of robbery in Cebu, Davao and Ormoc
and escaped.
The killing of Douglas Bilog was qualified by treachery because the attack was
unexpected and sudden, and the victim had no chance to defend himself. Likewise, the
aggravating circumstance of price was present in the commission of the crime and this
affects not only the person who received the money or the reward but also the person
who gave it.
For lack of necessary votes, the sentence is modified in that both appellants shall each
suffer Reclusion Perpetua.