Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Criminal Law 8a

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT

CASTILLO y MONES, accused-appellant. [289 SCRA 213 (1998)]
Facts: Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, floor manager of Cola Pub house
along EDSA, was sitting outside the pub while talking with his co-worker. Soon, their
customer Tony Dometita came out of the pub and informed him that hell be on his way
home. However, when he was about an arms length from Eulogio, appellant Robert
Castillo came out from nowhere and suddenly and without warning stabbed Tony with a
fan knife on his left chest. As Tony pleaded for help, appellant stabbed him once more,
hitting him on the left hand. Eulogio placed a chair between the two to stop Castillo
from further attacking Tony.
Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. Eulogio came to know later that Tony had
died. His body was found outside the fence of Iglesia ni Cristo, EDSA. Medico-legal
officer testified that the proximate cause of Tonys death was the stab wound on his
Defense: Appellant Robert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was attacked by 2
malefactors as testified by one Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver, who saw men
ganging up on Tony by the compound of Iglesia ni Cristo.
Ruling: The killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is committed when 2
conditions concur: (1) means, methods and forms of execution employed left the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such means,
methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the
accused w/o danger to his person. These requisites were evidently present when the
accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just
as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action rendered it difficult for the victim to
defend himself. The presence of defense wounds does not negate treachery because
the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest and hence, rendered Tony
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED, but
the award of actual and moral damages is DELETED for lack of factual basis. Costs
against appellant.

Criminal Law 8b
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIL DACIBAR and
WARLITO DICON, accused-appellants. Ed
Facts: At around nine oclock in the evening of September 5, 1991, Welda Bacalangco
was sitting behind their bed near her husband, Josue, who was sitting at the end of the
bed and was lifting the mosquito net. Suddenly, there was an explosion, followed by the
sounds of footsteps. Welda looked through their window and saw appellant Warlito Dicon
coming out from under their house, stooping and carrying a long firearm. Following him
was appellant Ramil Dacibar who was carrying a bolo. Seeing her husband shot, Welda
shouted to her children that their father was shot.
Riza who was then washing dishes at the kitchen also heard the gunshot and saw
Warlito Dicon holding a long firearm and Ramil Dacibar holding a bolo emerging from
under their house. Upon hearing her mother shouting that her father was shot she
immediately ran to her father and embraced him. Realizing the predicament of her
father, Riza together with her sister, shouted for help.
Rizas uncle came to help. He carried the victim with the intention of bringing the latter
to the hospital. However, by the time they reached the basketball court, the victim was
already dead. Thus, he brought the victim back to the latters house.
Defense: They contend that it was physically impossible for the victim to have been
shot from under his house by the appellants. They also question the finding that the
motive for the crime was the killing of Warlito Dicons dog.
Ruling: In finding appellants guilty of murder, the trial court ruled that the crime was

qualified by treachery, premeditation, superior strength, nighttime and dwelling, although

it said that premeditation, superior strength and nighttime were absorbed by treachery.
We agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Treachery is present
when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance
whatsoever to defend himself. The two conditions for treachery to be present are (1) that
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the
offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed
by him.
In the case at bar, the victim had absolutely no idea that he was going to be shot as he
went to bed, from under his own house at that. He was not in a position to defend himself,
being unaware and unexpectant of an attempt on his life, in the particular manner
purposely adopted by appellants. Clearly, he was killed in a treacherous manner. The
circumstance of treachery, however, absorbs the aggravating circumstances of superior
strength and nighttime.

Criminal Law 8c
BROOLA, accused-appellants.
Facts: Appellants Cando and Rapcing, aged 40 and 28 respectively, were employed as
candle makers at the Rosarian Candle Factory located in Paco, Manila. Appellant Vargas,
aged 20, was employed as a delivery boy. The victim, Luis D. Remoriata, was the
caretaker in said factory.
In the afternoon of May 13, 1995, Vargas, Rapcing and one Nonoy Sayson were
having a drinking session at a canteen in front of the factory. At around 9:30 P.M., Cando
joined the group. Upon the prompting of Vargas, Cando went to the factory to get his
salary. Cando came back angry because he was unable to get his salary from the
secretary, nor was he able to get a loan of P100.00 from the caretaker. Apparently,
Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the caretaker, so this time, he
threatened to kill the caretaker. The group continued their drinking session.
At around 11:00 P.M., Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with two knives and
carrying a shoulder bag, climbed the fence of the factory. They walked on the
galvanized iron roof towards the other building. One by one, they slipped through a
narrow window at the side of the building. The trio proceeded to the victims room,
which was lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Cando picked a piece of lead pipe and told
Vargas to pull open the door where the victims mosquito net was attached. When
Vargas pulled open the door, the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on
the head with the lead pipe. The victim awakened and Cando demanded money from
him. When the victim replied that he had no money, Cando struck him again with the
lead pipe. Blood oozed from the victims head. At around 6:00 A.M., Mrs. Norma Chu, the
factory owner, discovered the dead body of Luis Remoriata. The factory van was also
missing. A hysterical Mrs. Chu called the Barangay Captain, who in turn reported the
incident to the police.
Ruling: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. The conditions which must concur before
treachery can be appreciated are: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said
means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted. The essence of treachery
lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put
up by the offended party. The killing of the sleeping victim herein was attended by
treachery since he was in no position to flee or defend himself.

The presence of treachery, though, should not result in qualifying the offense to murder,
for the correct rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance,
robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its own definition and
special penalty in the Revised Penal Code