Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PEOPLE v. COSTALES
Facts:
Accused Fernando Costales and Fernando Ramirez are the high priests of Baro
a Cristiano were Miguel Marcelo, his wife, Crispina and their daughters were members
thereof. Miguel and Crispina decided to quit the congregation but they were warned by
Ramirez not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not want any harm to befall
them. Jessie, the daughter of Miguel and Crispina recalled that, her family was
preparing for the night when two persons, whom she readily recognized to be Ramirez
and Costales, suddenly barged into their house. Costales poked a gun at the head of
Miguel and shot him dead. Ramirez, on the other hand, sprayed tear gas and with his
firearm pumped a bullet on her mothers chest. Costales and Ramirez, stood charged
with the murder of Miguel and the frustrated murder of Crispina. They were also
charged with violation of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294 for having been found to be
in unlawful possession firearms.
Issue:
Ruling:
Yes. Although the prosecution duly established that the crime of illegal
possession of firearm under PD 1866 was committed, RA 8294, which took effect 7 July
1997, amended the decree and now considers the use of unlicensed firearm as a
special aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide, and not as a separate
offense. As it should be, possession and use of firearm without license should
aggravate the crimes of murder and frustrated murder as herein charged but, fortunately
for accused-appellant, Secs. 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
which took effect 1 December 2000, now require the qualifying as well as aggravating
circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information,
otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial.
Withal, in the absence of any allegation in the Information, that accused-appellant
committed murder with the use of unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be appreciated
in imposing the proper penalty. Thus, the crime of murder not being considered to have
been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, accused-
appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is sentenced to suffer only the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. In Crim. Case No., T-2056, the crime of attempted murder not likewise
considered to have been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, accused-appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is accordingly sentenced
in addition to his penalty imposed in Crim. Case No. T-2057 herein before mentioned, to
suffer an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
correccional medium as minimum, to eight (8) years and six (6) months of prision mayor
minimum as maximum.
PEOPLE v. DE LEON
Facts:
Early morning when the employees of Energex Gasoline Station were on duty,
one of their customers announced a holdup. The accused were armed with a shotgun
and .38 caliber pistol. They robbed the employees and took the money in the cashiers
office. One of the employees was also shot during the robbery incident. As a result of
the above incident, four Informations for Robbery with Homicide were filed against
appellants.
Issue:
Ruling:
It was already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No.
8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now
considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating
circumstance. Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect
before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an
unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and
appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic
aggravating circumstance.
SOMBILON v. PEOPLE
PEOPLE v. DADULLA
ART. 14, PAR. 1 THAT THE ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS
PUBLIC POSITION
PEOPLE v. MANDOLADO
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
When Mandolado and Ortillano hitched hike Tenorios vehicle, the former did not intend
to shoot the occupants of the vehicle and there was no relation between the parties
(personal or immediate).
Although appellants were holding public positions, nothing can be shown that the
appellants used their influence as a means to realize their purpose (U.S. v. Rodriguez,
19 Phil. 150,156-157)
There was no immediate or personal relationship between the parties. There was no
proof that the accused took advantage of their positions. Absent is the proof of
intimidation and they were not on duty at that time, although they were wearing uniforms
and armed.
When they rode the Tenorios vehicle, the appellants did not use any influence.
There is nothing to show that appellant Mandolado took advantage of his being a
sergeant in the Philippine Army to commit crimes. His having worn a fatigue uniform
and had army rifle is not sufficient to show that he misused his public position in the
commission of the crimes.
In People v. Herrera, the Court emphatically said that the mere fact that accused-
appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is
not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the
crime (People v. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002)
It is also essential that the confidence between the parties be immediate and personal
as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief that the former would not abuse
said confidence (Peo vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534)
PPL v. GAPASIN
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
position is attendant.
RULING:
Yes. First, the accused, being a PC member, was a public officer. Then, using
his position, he enlisted the help of several other persons, and together, they stalked the
suspect-victim. Finally, accused-appellant went well beyond his duty as a public officer
when he murdered the suspect using the rifle assigned to him, instead of simply
apprehending the suspect or reporting him to his superiors so a warrant of arrest and
seizure of the unlicensed firearm could be obtained.
PPL v. VILLA
Facts:
In the early morning of 22 June 1991 Dionito Fernandez was cutting grass in his
yard in New Cabalan, Olongapo City. Accused Rodolfo Villa, Jr., a member of the
CAFGU and neighbor of Dionito, suddenly came out of his house with his M-1 Garand
rifle and shot Dionito from behind killing him instantly. Ronald Fernandez and Sheila
Fernandez, children of Dionito, rushed to their fathers rescue after hearing the gunshot
but the accused also fired at them fatally hitting Ronald who was embracing his father,
and mortally wounding Sheila on the thigh and stomach. Samuel Eclevia, another
neighbor of the Fernandezes, attempted to wrestle the rifle from the accused but
Samuel too was gunned down. After his rampage, Rodolfo Villa Jr. surrendered to a
certain Captain Dolino of S2 OMDC (Olongapo Metropolitan District Command).
Rodolfo was accordingly charged with multiple murders.
Issue:
Held:
No. The court held that on the penalties imposed by the trial court, we do not
agree that the aggravating circumstance of "taking advantage of his public position" as
a CAFGU member should be considered against accused-appellant. The mere fact that
he was a member of the CAFGU and was issued an M-1 Garand rifle is not sufficient to
establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes.
PPL v. VILLAMOR
FACTS:
- Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on their way home after having dinner at
a friends house. They were on board a motorcycle, while Jerry was the one
driving.
- Assailants were identified as PO3 Villamor (PNP member) who conspired with
Maghilom (Public officer) who suddenly, unsuspectedly and deliberately attack
unsuspecting and unarmed victims who were blissfully unaware of the onrushing
peril behind them.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Treachery attended the killing of the victim, that at the time of the shooting, the
brothers were not in the position to defend themselves from the sudden attack of their
assailants. However, there was no showing that accused-appellant took advantage of
his being a policeman to shoot Jelord or that he used his influence, prestige or
ascendancy in killing the victim. He could have shot Jelord even without being a
policeman. In other words, the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position.
PPLv. FALLORINA
FACTS:
- Accused was an officer of the PNP, detailed in the Traffic Management Group.
- Victim was an 11 year old minor, together with his friends were playing on the
rooftop of an abandoned carenderia.
- While lying down with his stomach, upon hearing the shout, victim stood up and
was ready to go down.
-Accused pointed his .45 cal pistol towards the victim and fired a shot.
-Victim was rushed to the hospital by the accused but was pronounced dead on
arrival.
ISSUE:
Did the accused take advantage of his public position in committing the crime?
HELD:
No. There was no dispute that the accused was a policeman and used his
service firearm in shooting the victim. However, there was no evidence on record that
the accused took advantage of his position as a policeman. The shooting occurred only
when the accused saw the victim on the rooftop.
PEOPLE v. RODIL
FACTS:
Accused Floro Rodil was charged with murder for stabbing to death, the
deceased, Guillermo Masana. Guillermo Masana, a Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant,
together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel and Ricardo Ligsa, coast guard was having lunch
inside a restaurant. Masana dressed in a civilian clothes, saw Rodil,the accused,
outside the restaurant. He then went outside together with Fidel and approached Rodil.
Masana introduced himself as a PC officer and asked Rodil if the gun tucked on his
waist had a license. Instead of answering, Rodil step backward and tried to draw his
gun but Fidel was able to stop him. The three of them went back inside the restaurant,
wherein Masana and Rodil occupied a separate table from the group. While Masana
placed the gun on the table and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked
Rodil to countersigned it, but Rodil refused and asked Masana to return his gun. As
Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled out a double bladed dagger and stabbed
Masana several times, which cause his death. The chief of police Primo Panaligan was
also inside the restaurant and was able to help in wrestling the dagger from Rodil.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance under Article 14 Par. 3 with
insult or lack of disregard of rank can be appreciated.
HELD:
ART 14, PAR 3: WITH INSULT OR LACK OR REGARD DUE TO OFFENDED PARTY
BY REASON OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, DWELLING.
PEOPLE v. SANTOS
PPL v. DANIEL
PPL v. RODIL
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance under Article 14 Par. 3 with
insult or lack of disregard of rank can be appreciated.
FACTS:
Accused Floro Rodil was charged with murder for stabbing to death, the
deceased, Guillermo Masana.
Masana dressed in a civilian clothes, saw Rodil,the accused, outside the restaurant. He
then went outside together with Fidel and approached Rodil. Masana introduced himself
as a PC officer and asked Rodil if the gun tucked on his waist had a license. Instead of
answering, Rodil step backward and tried to draw his gun but Fidel was able to stop
him.
The three of them went back inside the restaurant, wherein Masana and Rodil occupied
a separate table from the group. While Masana placed the gun on the table and wrote a
receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to countersigned it, but Rodil refused
and asked Masana to return his gun. As Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled
out a double bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times, which cause his death.
The chief of police Primo Panaligan was also inside the restaurant and was able to help
in wrestling the dagger from Rodil.
HELD:
If Rodil was charged with complex of crime of murder with assault against an agent of
authority and not merely a murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
rank may not be appreciated because the circumstance will be absorbed into change of
assault against an agent of person in authority.
But in this case, Rodil was charged with murder, therefore the aggravating circumstance
of disregard was appreciated in this imposition of penalties. The appeal was affirmed,
the charged was Homicide aggravated by disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank.
PPL v. TANO
PPL v. REYES
FACTS:
The appellant was charged with robbery with homicide in an information, the
accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about June 11, 1998, in the municipality
of Lumban, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused , with intent to gain, and while conveniently armed with a bolo,
by means of violence against or intimidation of person, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one (1) ladies wristwatch marked
Rolex ; one (1) gold ring with birthstone of Jade; one (1) Pass Book in the name of the
victim, Aurora Lagrada, in the total amount of Php. 80,000.00, all belonging to Aurora
Lagrada, to her damage and prejudice, in the aforementioned amount, that by reason or
on the occasion of the said robbery accused with intent to kill and while conveniently
armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab one Aurora Lagrada several times in the different parts of her body, which
directly caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her surviving
heirs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court erred in applying Article 14, paragraph 3 of the
RPC.
HELD:
PPL v. EVANGELIO
Facts
On 3rd day of October 2001 the accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and armed with a handgun and
deadly/bladed weapons forcibly enter the inhabited house/residence of BBB and while
inside, by means of violence and intimidation using said arms on the latter and the other
occupants therein, and without the consent of their owners did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, take, and carry away from said residence the following
personal properties and on the occasion of the said robbery and in the same
house/residence, accused, by means of force and intimidation and using the said
handgun and deadly/bladed weapons, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 17-year-oldminor, against her will and
consent and at the time when the latter lost consciousness after her head was banged
on the bathroom floor.
Issue
Held
PPL v. CALISO
PPL v. LORA
PPL v. MANDOLADO
PPL v. ARROJADO
PPL v. JAURIGUE
PPL v. LAGUARDIA
PPL v. MARRA
PPL v. DESALISA
PPL v. LIBRANDO
PPL v. VENTURA
PPL v. AVECILLA
PPL v. VENTURA
ART 14, PAR 8. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF
ARMED MEN, OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY
PPL v. LOZANO
PPL v. CARINO
PPL v. ENOJA
PPL v. ILAO-A
PPL v. ZETA
PPL v. FALABRICA
PPL v. SANCHEZ
PPL V. GABRINO
PPL v. ALINAO
PPL v. SABANGAN
PPL v. MARQUEZ
PPL v. EMPACIS
PPL v. LABUGUEN
PPL v. CABATO
PPL v. RUELAN
PPL v. PADILLA
PPL v. SANSAET
PPL v. DE JESUS
PPL v. LAOG
PPL v. SALCEDO
PPL v. PALING
PPL v. PANSENSOY
PPL v. VILLACORTA
PPL v. YANSON
PPL v. AGACER
PPL v. NELMIDA
PPL v. AQUINO
PPL v. GUNDA
PPL v. FELICIANO
PPL v. MATIBAG
PPL v. BUMIDANG
PPL v. CACHOLA
PPL v. BAELLO
ART. 14, PAR 21. CRUELTY
PPL v. ILAO-A
PPL v. CATIAN
PPL v. GUERRERO
SIMANGAN v. PPL
PPL v. ORILLA
RELATIONSHIP
PPL v. ATOP
PPL v. MARCOS
INTOXICATION
PPL v. CAMANO
PPL v. RENEJANE
PPL v. TAMBIS
PPL v. FONTILLAS
PPL v. PATELAN
PPL v.MACATANDA
PPL v. ENOT
PPL v. LANSANAS
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
PPL v. DORIA
PPL v. PACIS
PPL v. ESPIRITU
PPL v. JANJALANI
GUILLERGAN v. PPL
AMBAGAN v. PPL
PPL v. MANDOLADO
PPL v. DOCTOLERO
PPL v. TAMAYO
PPL v. CRUZ, JR
PPL v. SALVADOR
PPL v. GAMBAO
VINO v. PPL
PPL v. ORTEGA
PPL v. TALINGDAN
TAN v. PPL
FRANCISCO v. PPL
ONG v. PPL
PPL v. BON
PPL v. SANTIAGO
PPL v. FORMIGONES
O.P. v. CATAGUEZ
MONSANTO v. FACTORAN
PDEA v. BRODETT