Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

FROM: http://www.scribd.

com/doc/233072093/Compiled-Article-14-Final
ARTICLE 14: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION


ARTICLE 62
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such
a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
medium and maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods; and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided
for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in
its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the
offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. For the purpose of this article, a
person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

SEC. 9, RULE 110 RULES OF COURT

Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

RA 8294

PEOPLE vs WALPAN LADJAALAM Y MIHAJIL, a.k.a. WARPAN
GR NO. 136149-51,
Sept. 19, 2000
FACTS:
A search warrant was issued against appellant Ladjaalam. The authorities, led by SPO2 Felipe
Gaganting, Chief of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of Zamboanga, conducted a briefing as to the service
of the warrant. Dela Pena was assigned as presentor of the warrant while Lacastesantos and Rivera
were designated to conduct the search.
They then headed to the house of appellant. When they were close to the vicinity, they were met
by rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the house. There they saw appellant
Ladjaalam firing at them with an M14 rifle.
After taking cover from the concrete fence, the police were able to enter the door of the
extension building. Inside the sala, Lacastesantos and Mirasolsaw 2 old women together with a young
girl and 3 children. One of the old women brought the children to the second floor.
Lacastesantos and Mirasol then proceeded to the second floor where they saw appellant firing at
them earlier. Appellant Ladjaalam saw the police going to the second floor so he escaped by jumping
from the window and unto the roof of the neighbour. He was later arrested after a brief chase at the
back of his house.
The police then served the search warrant. They saw rifles with magazines and live ammunition
including the M14 rifle which appellant used to fire upon them. They also saw drug paraphernalia and
shabu.
For the defenses version, appellant raised the defense of alibi and denial. He also testified that
the policemen killed three persons during the said raid.
RTC ruled that the search warrant was void for violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court which requires only 1 specific offense for the issuance of a search warrant. However, he ruled on
the validity of the arrest of appellant Ladjaalam because the latter fired upon the police when they were
about to serve the void warrant.
Furthermore, RTC found appellant Ladjaalam guilty for maintaining a drug den, found him
guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide, and found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE:
W/N appellant Ladjaalam is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms
HELD:
No. "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
A simple reading of RA 8294 thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.
Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an
aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide
was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of
firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct
assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.
Celino vs. CA
G.R. No. 170562
June 29, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner was caught in possession of an armalite rifle outside his home. The offense was
committed during the period of COMELEC gun ban. When ask to show permit authorizing him to
possess a gun outside his house, petitioner cannot produce any.

Two separate Information were filed against the petitioner, Angel Celino: one for violation of
the Comelec gun ban; the other, for Illegal Possession of Firearm under R.A. 8294. After pleading not
guilty to the former, he filed a Motion to Quash on the latter contending that he cannot be prosecuted
for illegal possession of firearms x xx if he was also charged of having committed another crime of
[sic] violating the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts x xx.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner can be charge for both offenses

Held: Yes
Ruling against the petitioner, the High Court explained that he can be convicted of illegal
possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word
committed taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence,
necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful
prosecution or voluntary admission.

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat."

In the present case, however, petitioner has only been accused of committing a violation of the
COMELEC gun ban. An accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing that
petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply.
Ergo he can be charge of both offenses.

In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any
information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of
firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating
circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
attempted coup detat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted.

INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.FLORO RODIL
G.R. No. L-35156
November 20, 1981
FACTS:
At about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 24, 1971, the deceased, PC Lt. Guillermo
Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and
Patrolman Felix Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang
market. While they were eating, they saw, through the glass panel of the restaurant, appellant outside
the restaurant blowing his whistle. Their attention having been drawn to what appellant was doing, Lt.
Masana then in civilian clothing, accompanied by PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, went out of the restaurant,
approached appellant and asked the latter, after Identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the gun
that was tucked in his waist had a license. Instead of answering the question of Lt. Masana appellant
moved one step backward and attempted to draw his gun. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel immediately
grabbed appellant's gun from appellant's waist and gave it to Lt. Masana After that, Lt. Masana told the
appellant to go inside the restaurant. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel followed. Lt. Masana and the appellant
occupied a separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters from the table of Lt. Masana's three
companions Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica. After the two were already seated, Lt. Masana placed
appellant's gun on the table. After that Lt. Masana pulled out a piece of coupon bond paper from his
pocket and wrote thereon the receipt for the gun, and after signing it, he asked appellant to countersign
the same, but appellant refused to do so. Instead, he asked Lt. Masana to return the gun to him. Lt.
Masana rejected appellant's plea, telling, the latter that they would talk the matter over in the municipal
building of Indang, Cavite. When Lt. Masana was about to stand up, appellant suddenly pulled out a
double-bladed dagger and with it he stabbed Lt. Masana several times, on the chest and stomach
causing his death several hours thereafter.
While the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt. Masana PC soldier
Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard Ricardo Ligsa and policeman Felix Mojica who were all seated at a
separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from that occupied by the accused and Lt.
Masana stood up to assist Lt. Masana but Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who
happened to be taking his lunch in the same restaurant, was quicker than any of them in going near the
combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the accused from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger
from the accused-appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the
municipal building of Indang, Cavite, while the companions of Lt. Masana brought the latter to the V.
Luna Hospital in Quezon City where he expired several hours later as a result of the stab wounds
inflicted by the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or homicide complexed
with assault upon an agent of authority.
HELD:
The appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide aggravated by contempt for
or insult to a public authority or disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank.
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that appellant knew because the victim, who was in
civilian clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in authority; he cannot be convicted of the
complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority, for the simple reason
that the information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or at the time of the
assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. The information simply alleges that appellant
did attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official
duties. Such an allegation cannot be an adequate substitute for the essential averment to justify a
conviction of the complex crime, which necessarily requires the imposition of the maximum period of
the penalty prescribed for the graver offense. Like a qualifying circumstance, such knowledge must be
expressly and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the absence of such allegation, the
required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Applying this principle, the attack on the victim, who was known to
the appellant as a peace officer, could be considered only as aggravating, being "in contempt or with
insult to the public authorities," or as an "insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank.
It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to
offend, injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it is obvious
that the victim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the victim.
The term "rank" should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such, refers to a high social
position or standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded official standing or social position or
station; or to the order or place in which said officers are placed in the army and navy in relation to
others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative
position in reference to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command
or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff officers; or to a grade or
official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade,
including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position.
If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an
agent of a person in authority, and not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard
of rank or contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as aggravating because either
circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority. But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only. Consequently, either
aggravating circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.
DWELLING
PEOPLE VS. APDUHAN
G.R. No. L-19491
August 30, 1968
DOCTRINE:
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. The rationale
behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be committed in
no other place than in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited house.
FACTS:
The accused Apduhan, together with his co-accused RodulfoHuiso and Felipe Quimson, pleaded guilty
to a second amended information which recites:.
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses ApolonioApduhan, Jr., alias Junior,
RodulfoHuiso and Felipe Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the
Municipality of Mabini, Province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused and
five (5) other persons whose true names are not yet known (they are presently known
only with their aliases of BernabeMiano, Rudy, Angel-Angi, Romeo and Tony) and who
are still at large (they will be charged in separate information or informations as soon as
they are arrested and preliminary proceedings in Crim. Case No. 176 completed before
the Justice of the Peace Court), all of them armed with different unlicensed firearms,
daggers, and other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping one another,
with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, by
means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses HonoratoMiano and Antonia
Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano
and Herminigilda de Miano; and, once inside the said dwelling house, the above-named
accused with their five (5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano
and another person by the name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said
dwelling house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries which
caused their death; and thereafter the same accused and their five (5) other companions,
did take and carry way from said dwelling house cash money amounting to Three
Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to
HonoratoMiano and Geronimo Miano, to the damage and prejudice of the said
HonoratoMiano and the heirs of the deceased Geronimo Miano in the sum of Three
Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00) with respect to the amount robbed, and also to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of deceased Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton by
reason of the death of these two persons.
Act committed contrary to the provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code
with the special aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with
the use of unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating
circumstances, as follows:
1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties without any
provocation from the latter;
2. That nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and.
3. That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who
were fully armed, being numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed
and defenseless.

ISSUE:
Whether aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present
HELD:
YES. While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it at the same time constitutes an
admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances
therein recited. The four aggravating circumstances are (1) band; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime; and (4)
abuse of superior strength. The prosecution does not need to prove the said three circumstances (all
alleged in the second amended information) since the accused by his plea of guilty, has supplied the
requisite proof.
The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of
persons, like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery
could be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent
only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as
trespass and robbery in an inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez,
ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime
committed, because, the crime being robbery with violence or intimidation against persons
(specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors thereof could have committed it without the necessity
of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." CuelloCalon opines that the commission of the
crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm.

NIGHTTIME

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO GARCIA Y CABARSE alias "TONY MANOK" and
REYNALDO ARVISO V REBELLEZA alias "RENE BISUGO
G.R. No. L-30449
October 31, 1979
FACTS:
The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs.
Corazon DioquinoPaterno, sister of the deceased, ApolonioDioquino, Jr.
Before the incident which gave rise to this case, Corazon's husband informed her that he saw
Apolonio engaged in a drinking spree with his gang in front of an establishment known as Bill's Place
at M. de la Cruz Street. Pasay City. Corazon surmised that her husband must have been painting the
town red ("nag good time") in that same place. Upon learning this information from her husband,
Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could fetch her brother. At that
time, she had not been aware that Apolonio was in Pasay City; she had been of the belief that he was
with his family in Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted him to escape the untoward
influence of his gang. In explaining the rationale for her noctural mission, she employed in her sworn
statement the following language: "DahilitongsiJunior ay meronnakamingnabalitaannanaaakay ng
barkadaniyasapaggawa ng hindimabuti."
On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos Street, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a
group of about seven persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She
recognized the two accused because they wereformergangmates of her brother; in fact, she knew them
before the incident by their aliases of "Tony Manok" and "Rene Bisugo, " respectively.
Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp
instrument. When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters away, she saw the
group catch up with her brother and maltreat him. Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed
him. Immediately afterwards, the group scampered away in different directions. Antonio was left
behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his
long knife. Corazon was not able to observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to
witness the scene.
When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw that he was bathed in a
pool of his own blood.

ISSUE:
WON nocturnity (nighttime) is an aggravating circumstances?

HELD:
YES. The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said that it was
committed at night, which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code,
Article 13. Is this basis for finding that nocturnity is aggravating? The Revised Penal Code, Article 14,
provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when the crime is committed in the nighttime, whenever
nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the offense. There are two tests for nocturnity as an
aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it
facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it was purposely sought by the offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the accused
purposely sought the cover of night time. Next, we proceed and apply the objective test, to determine
whether nocturnity facilitated the killing of the victim. A group of men were engaged in a drinking
spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased by seven others. The criminal assault on the
victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and
encouraged impunity by persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their Identity
because of the darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances combine
to pass the objective test, and the Court found that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the
commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with the lust to kill to follow their impulses with
the false courage born out of the belief that they could not be readily Identified.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
People vsDiscalsota
G.R. No. 136892.
April 11, 2002


FACTS:
Herbert, along with his friends Jenny, Pedro and Rowell visited del Rosario. While inside del
Rosario's house, a group of men started shouting at them from the outside asking them to get out and
threatening to kill them. They called the police for help. Four tanods came and escorted the four
teenagers outside of the house. The group threatening them were still outside the house when they
came out. Upon reaching the main road, they boarded a pedicab. The pedicab had not yet left when
Rowell saw someone running towards them. The four jumped out of the pedicab. The man managed to
overtake Herbert and thrusted his knifke on Herbert's back. Discalsota was positively identified as the
assailant.

ISSUE:
WON the crime committed was attended with evident premeditation.

HELD:
NO. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of
the crime itself of the following elements thereof, viz: (a) the time when the accused determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and
(c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
In this case, the first two elements of evident premeditation are present. As found by the RTC, the
time appellant determined to commit the crime was when he started shouting at the victim and the
latters companions: You, there, get out and we will kill you! By staying outside the house and
following the victims companions when they came out, he manifestly indicated that he clung to his
determination.
As for the third element, the prosecution evidence shows that appellant started shouting outside
Mrs. del Rosarios house at 3:30 p.m.When the victims group left the house, it was not yet dark; it was
only past four oclock in the afternoon.The police received information on the stabbing incident at
4:30p.m. on the same day. It took less than an hour from the time appellant evinced a desire to commit
the crime, as manifested by his shouts outside the house, up to the time he stabbed the victim. The
span of less than one hour could not have afforded the former full opportunity for meditation and
reflection on the consequences of the crime he committed. Where no sufficient lapse of time is
appreciable from the determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated

TREACHERY

People vs. Escote
G.R. No. 140756
April 4, 2003

Facts:

The accused Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. together with Victor Acuyan boarded a bus. One of the
passengers in the said bus is SPO1 Jose Manio Jr. who was seated at the rear portion of the bus and on
his way home to Angeles City. When the bus was travelling along the highway the accused suddenly
stood up and announced a hold up. They fired their gun upward. The two then accosted the passengers
and divested them of their money and valuables. Then, the two went to Manio. They took his ID as
well as his service gun. They shot him. Manio sustained six entrance wounds. The robbery was over in
25 minutes. The accused were convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Issue:

Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present.

Held:

Yes. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present (1) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means and methods or form of attacks employed by him. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim,
depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to
himself. In this case, the accused were armed with hand guns. They first disarmed the deceased and
then shot him. When the victim was shot he was defenseless. Treachery is applied in the constituent
crime of homicide.



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. WILLIAM ANCHETA, EDGARDO AREOLA, ANTOS
DACANAY, LITO DE LA CRUZ, FELIPE ULEP @ BOY ULEP AND ELY CALCALA
G.R. No. 143935
June 4, 2004
FACTS:

Alfredo Roca was in his farm during lunch time about to take his lunch with his family when an
owner-type jeepney arrived with multiple men alighting and then suddenly out of nowhere pulled their
guns and started to open fire at him and his family. That even a hand grenade was toss in the volley of
bullets. Defendant Felipe BOY Ulep, being the only one caught while his other co-defendants are
still at large, was convicted for robbery with homicide, through separate trial for expeditious reasons,
by the RTC of Cabanatauan City for stealing 30 cavans of palay worth php 4,500 belonging to Alfredo
Roca and in the process killing Afredos Family in the process: Marjune Roca, Benita Roca, Febe
Roca.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Treachery may be appreciated in the case of Robbery with Homicide.

HELD:

Yes. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim
of homicide is killed by treachery. There was treachery as the events narrated by the eyewitnesses
pointed to the fact that the victims could not have possibly been aware that they would be attacked by
appellant and his companions. There was no opportunity for the victims to defend themselves as the
assailants, suddenly and without provocation, almost simultaneously fired their guns at them. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part
of the person attacked.

In People vs. Escote, This Court held:
Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime
is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime.

In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not
at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied to the
constituent crime of homicide and not to the constituent crime of robbery of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.

The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property
or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably
with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.

IGNOMINY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALFANTA y ALO
G.R. No. 125633
December 9, 1999

FACTS:
On August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, while asleep in the residence of a friend,
Rolando Alfanta, whom Nita Fernandez, had not seen before, suddenly entered the house where she
was sleeping, pulled her and boxed her jaw and put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will
not obey him, he will kill her. She was forced to climb a fence. Because of fear, as he was holding a
bolo, she followed. Alfanta instructed her to go to the vacant house and she was told to undress, she did
because of fear. Thereafter, he molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his
genitals to her vagina. After that, she was told to lie face down, she complied. Thereafter, he inserted
his penis to her anus. After inserting his penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his
fingers to her private part. Then after all these acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take
a rest. Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several
times. She went to the police station to report the incident.

ISSUE:
Whether or not nighttime and ignominy be appreciated as aggravating circumstances

HELD:

Yes. The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in
facilitating the commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by
ensuring his impunity from his illegal acts.

There was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
superior, female inferior, but also the same position as dogs do i.e., entry from behind. The appellant
claims there was no ignominy because The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this
position is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but
not otherwise (People v. Saylan). The means employed added ignominy to the natural effects of the act
as it added disgrace to the injury caused by the crime.

RTC decision was affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion
perpetua.

FROM: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160197894/People-v-Torrefiel
Ignominy- a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime. This aggravating circumstance is applicable when the crime
committed is against chastity. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book One)

People vs. Torrefiel

Facts:
December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in
the mountains. They passed by Eadys residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis.
Eady had none except what he had on.

Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission. She scolded Torrefiel and
Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers. Torrefiel threatened her
with slapping; brought out revolver. Eady and Cordero were charged with being fifth columnists as
they refused to give aid to them. Subsequently they were taken to the USSAFE headquarters.

Torrefiel took charge of Eady and Ormeo took charge of Cordero. Their hands were free but were
blindfolded. Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following. After a while
Eady did not respond anymore so they stopped to wait for them. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so
he went back to a guardhouse and left Eady there. He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and
Cordero but was unsuccessful. At the guardhouse, he discovers Eady had escaped. Torrefiel followed a
different route enabling him to find Ormeo and Cordero. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon
discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero was left with Torrefiel.

As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and
raped her. Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals. It was
visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little. Pressing her neck so she would remain
silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her. Ormeo, taking advantage, also had sex with
her. The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house.
A servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away. Upon Eadys return, Cordero informed him that
she was abused by Torrefiel.

Issues:
1) WON witness is credible, and WON rape was committed.
2) WON there are any aggravating circumstances.

Held/Ratio:
1) YES to both.

a. The court sees no incongruity between the affidavit and testimony of complainants. The testimony
sufficiently proves Torrefiels guilt.
i. Cordero recognized Torrefiel by his voice even though she was blindfolded because it was
falling.
ii. Back at Eadys house, the soldiers roaming inside the house is proven by the sound of
their footsteps.

b. Exertion of force or violence is implied in the term rape. Pushing down the victim proves force.
Although for Ormeo, use of force may still be doubted. Cordero was not hostile towards him after
crime.

2) YES.
a. Trial Court erred in accepting the aggravating circumstance of NOCTURNITY this was entirely
unexpected as the ordeal started early in the afternoon.

b. IGNOMINY is present.
The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim
augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto.

Вам также может понравиться