PEOPLE VS.

CANTONJOS
FACTS:
On November 16, 1997, Cantonjos and Rogelio Alcantara were at a wedding party and had a heated
argument regarding Rogelio's tricycle, which Alcantara was driving.

In the middle of the heated argument, Cantonjos left the party on a tricycle, tagging along Bolon and
another identified man. The group then fetched the accused Balag from his house.

The group thereafter proceeded to the house of Jimmy Olaje where Cantonjos and Balag borrowed a
bolo, but to no avail.

Before 8:00 p.m. that night, Cantonjos' group arrived at the Rosario Institute. Cantonjos and Balag went
inside the institute, while Bolon and another unidentified man were left outside of the institute upon
Cantonjos' instructions.

As Cantonjos entered the institute's gate, he pulled out an icepick from the waist of his pants. Sometime
after Cantonjos and Balag went inside the Rosario Institute, they came out running with bloodied hands.

Cantonjos exclaimed that they (he and Balag) killed Rogelio Alcantara and that Balag cut Cantonjos' right
thumb with his fan knife when Cantonjos tried to stop him from further stabbing Rogelio. Cantonjos
threatened Bolon that he and Balag would kill him if he reported the killing to anybody.

On November 21, 1997, the victims family and Bolon went to the municipal hall, where the latter gave his
sworn statement narrating the killing of Alcantara.
Balag was arrested by his uncle policeman, but Cantojos remained at large.
The trial court rendered judgment finding Balag guilty beyond the reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and scoffing at the corpse of the
victim.
Accused-appellant requested a review of the decision of the court stating that the trial court erred in
finding him as one of the authors of the crime charged and guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength in the commission of the crime.
HELD:
Yes, the court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. In order that
evident premeditation may be appreciated, the prosecution must show:
(1) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and
(3) A sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime
that would be sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warnings.
The prosecution in the instant case, however, has failed to show when the plan to kill Rogelio was
hatched and that sufficient time had elapsed between that time and the execution of the plan on
November 16, 1997 so as to allow the accused Balag and Cantonjos to reflect upon the consequences of

their acts. Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable they might be, would
not suffice to establish evident premeditation.
Abuse of superior strength cannot likewise be appreciated even if there were at least two assailants as
superiority in number vis-a-vis that of the victim does not of itself warrant a finding of abuse of superior
strength. There must exist proof that the attackers deliberately took advantage of their superior strength,
but the prosecution in the instant case has not adduced such evidence.
Having said, the impugned decision of the court is modified. The accused appellant is found guilty of
Homicide beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to twelve years of prision mayor as minimum, and
seventeen and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

PEOPLE VS. LAOG

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Laog was charged of two crimes on the 6th day of June 2000.
He was charged guilty with the crime of murder for the killing of Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal and also
charged guilty with the crime of rape of AAA.
AAA testified that she and her friend, Jennifer, were walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply
for work when suddenly, accused-appellant, while holding an ice pick, forcibly brought them to a grassy
area.
Accused appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick resulting to her death, while AAA was
hit in the head several times with the lead pipe, stabbed her on the face, and then, raped her.
Accused appellant, Laog, appealed to dismiss the decision of the court contending that the court gravely
erred in giving credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA, that the court gravely erred in finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite failure of the prosecution to prove it, and that the court erred in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide, with the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
HELD:
The court held that appellants testimony is a defense of denial and alibi, and therefore held no
consideration. His defense cannot prevail over the straightforward and credible testimony of AAA who
positively identified him as the perpetrator of murder and rape.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous to
the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.
It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely used excessive force that is out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the person attacked.
In this case, as personally witnessed by AAA, appellant struck Jennifer in the head with a lead pipe then
stabbed her repeatedly until she was dead. Clearly, the manner by which appellant had brutally slain
Jennifer with a lethal weapon, by first hitting her in the head with a lead pipe to render her defenseless
and vulnerable before stabbing her repeatedly, unmistakably showed that appellant intentionally used
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to his unarmed victim.

The abuse of superior strength and use of deadly weapon as aggravating circumstances have greater
relevance insofar as the civil aspect of this case is concerned.
Thus, the court maintained its decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape
with homicide under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.

PEOPLE VS. YANSON

FACTS:
Elmo Galfo (victim) and Calito Magan, were drinking whisky in the store of a certain Lorna Tamson.
After a while, they were joined by appellant and Salcedo. They finished drinking at around 8:45 in the
evening after which Galfo and Magan walked home together.
While walking, Galfo noticed two persons following them, one of whom suddenly stabbed Magan at the
back. Galfo positively identified the appellant as the person who stabbed Magan.
Galfo tried to approach the victim but saw appellant and Salcedo rush towards him, making him run for
safety. When he looked back, he saw appellant and Salcedo stab the victim some more.
Appellant denied the charges against him and contended that in Galfos sworn statement before the
police officers, the latter did not identify him as the assailant and that Galfo described him only through
the outfit without any mention of his features or identifying marks.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Yanson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.
HELD:
Yes. In this case, the court held that the failure to specifically mention his name does not foreclose the
fact that he was the assailant. It must be recalled that during his testimony in court, Galfo positively
identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. More importantly, Galfos narration in his sworn statement is
consistent in all material points with his testimony in open court.
Furthermore, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
the offender arising from the defense, which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is
that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the
hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution
that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime in this case. The
prosecution established that the appellant suddenly stabbed the victim from behind thereby giving him no
opportunity to resist the attack or defend himself.