EDWIN RAZON y LUCEA vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

quadrant of the abdomen, a stab wound on the left arm measuring 5 cm and a stab

FACTS: PO1 Francisco Chopchopen (Chopchopen) was walking wound on the right buttock 1.3 cm. long with a depth of about 4 cm. The stab wound

towards Upper Pinget Baguio City, at around midnight of August 1, 1993, when a on the abdomen killed Gonzalo, as it penetrated the small intestines, pancreas and

taxicab driven by Edwin Razon y Lucea(Razon) stopped beside the abdominal aorta, causing massive hemorrhage and loss of blood.

him. Razon told Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at Dreamland
Razon for his part asserted that he acted in self-defense. Not finding credence
Subdivision. Chopchopen then asked Razon to go with him to the place of the
in Razon's claim of self-defense, RTC Branch 60 of Baguio City convicted him of
incident to check if the persons who held him up were still there. Razon was hesitant homicide.
at first but eventually went with Chopchopen to said area about 100 meters up the
Issue. Whether petitioner acted in self-defense.
road. While walking about eight meters off the road, Chopchopen noticed a person
lying on the ground and partially hidden by a big stone. Upon closer Ruling: It is settled that when an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-

look, Chopchopen saw that the person's shirt was soaked in blood and that he defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his

was hardly breathing. Lying beside the man was a wooden plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow

cane. Chopchopen asked Razon to help him bring the person to the hospital. On the from his admission that he killed the victim.[38] Self-defense cannot be justifiably

way, Chopchopen asked Razon if he was the one who stabbed the appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when

victim. Razon answered no. Soon they met a police mobile patrol driven by SPO2 it is extremely doubtful by itself.[39] Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of

Samuel Bumangil (Bumangil) who followed them to Baguio General Hospital. The evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength

victim, who was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo (Gonzalo), was pronounced of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[40]

dead on arrival.[3] He was 23 years old and a polio victim.[4]

Here, petitioner admitted having inflicted the wound which killed Gonzalo. [41] The

Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held up by three men, which burden is therefore on him to show that he did so in self-defense. As correctly found

included Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan knife by the RTC,however, petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense.

and told Bumangil that it was the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A later search of the
cab however yielded another weapon, a colonial knife with bloodstains which was To escape liability, the person claiming self-defense must show by sufficient,

found under a newspaper near the steering wheel. At the police satisfactory and convincing evidence that: (1) the victim committed unlawful

station, Razon admitted having stabbed Gonzalo but insisted that he did so in self- aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person

defense.[5] claiming self-defense; (2) there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) there was lack of sufficient

An autopsy conducted on the body of the victim showed that he sustained three stab provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or at least any

wounds, to wit: a stab wound measuring 2.5 cms. Found in the front and lower provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense was not the proximate and
immediate cause of the victim's aggression.[42]

The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is the
[43]
element of unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense unless the victim
committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-
defense.[44] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected
attack or imminent danger thereof and not just a threatening or intimidating
[45]
attitude. In case of threat, it must be offensive, strong and positively showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury.[46] For a person to be considered the unlawful
aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his
intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[47]
Petitioner claims that Gonzalo, who was seated behind him in the taxicab, declared
a hold-up and poked a knife at the base of his neck. Granting that this is true, what
transpired next, changed the nature of the roles played by petitioner and Gonzalo.
As correctly found by the trial court:
Without scrutinizing Razon's assertion that he was held up, and
assuming the same to be true, there was, indeed unlawful aggression
when Gonzalo poked a knife on Razon's neck. But, when Razon, in a
Herculean feat, was able to grab the knife from Gonzalo and freed
his right hand from the hold of Gonzalo's two companions, the
aggression no longer existed. In fact, Gonzalo's two companions,
went out of the taxicab and Gonzalo himself went out also towards
the canal of the road. At this point, Razon could have started his
taxicab and left the place because he was left alone in the taxicab.But
he did not. He went after Gonzalo and his two companions and
started swinging the knife he grabbed from Gonzalo. He even had
time to go back to the taxicab and get his own knife and then went
back to the three men. He then was holding two knives. There was
no proof that Gonzalo's companions were able to throw stones at
him or the taxicab to indicate perhaps, that his three passengers who
intended to hold him up continued their unlawful aggression...
When Gonzalo and his two companions went out of the taxicab, and Razon followed
them outside, Razon became the aggressor. The wounds sustained by Gonzalo would
clearly show that he was attacked by Razon.
Petitioner unequivocally admitted that after the three men went out of his taxicab,
he ran after them and later went back to his cab to get his colonial knife; then he
went down the canal to swing his knife at the victim, wounding and killing him in
the process. Such can no longer be deemed as self-defense.
It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression
on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful aggression
ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former
aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed.[52] Retaliation
is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by
the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-
defense the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the
accused
With petitioner's failure to prove self-defense, the inescapable conclusion is that
he is guilty of homicide as correctly found by the RTC.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. MAGDALENA CALISO
The complaint alleges that the defendant, being a maid of Messrs. Esmeralda
(Emilio), voluntarily, illegally and criminally and with the purpose of satisfying a
vengeance, administer a certain amount of concentrated acetic acid, which is a
poisonous substance, to Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., a 9-month-old boy, Burns in the
mouth, throat, intestines and other vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily
caused the death of the victim, who succumbed a few hours later; That in the
commission of this crime, have attended the aggravating circumstances of Alevosia,
abuse of confidence and that the Act has been committed in the own abode of the
parents of the victim.
FACTS:
That in the afternoon of February 8, 1932, while the husbands. Messrs. Emilio
Esmeralda and Flora Gonzalez were napping, suddenly Mrs. de Esmeralda woke up

because Oyo an acute cry from her son Emilio Esmeralda, 9 months old, who was
sleeping in a bed on the opposite side of the site where she was sleeping with her
husband. When Mrs. de Esmeralda arrived, followed by her husband, to bed where
she had left her son asleep, as she lifted the mosquito net from the bed, she
immediately perceived a strong smell of acetic acid and found her son, who was still
weeping heavily, with her eyes blank, swollen, whitish lips and a bruised face, and
when raised, I perceive the smell of acetic acid in the child's breath.
Both doctors, as well as Dr. Locsin, are inanimate in the assertion that the death of
the child was due to the poisoning by means of acid acetic, and all, especially Dr.
Ochoa, coincide in the opinion that the death has been by asphyxiation, because the
acid acetic has Wreaked havoc on the child's larynx and he couldn't breathe.
Having reached this conclusion that the death of the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., was
due to acetic acid poisoning, the other question that the Juzgago has to solve is:
who administers this substance
It is a proven fact that days before this event, upon returning Mr. Emilio Esmeralda
to his house, coming from the factory of the Central La Carlota, at that early morning,
not a certain lump that was moving in the basses of his bed in the room-bedroom of
him and his mistress when This one spent a few days in La Carlota. Fearing that some
thief had entered under the bed, took his revolver and threatened to shoot a shot
that was in there if it did not come out. Indeed from there came a man and, all
trembling, told Mr. Esmeralda that he was not a thief, but was there because he had
been called by the defendant with whom he was in loving relations
Ms. de Esmeralda, given her education and being a woman at last, felt very offended
and indignant at the act of her maid and, very nervous, I hope the return of the
defendant, and when this arrived, Mrs. Esmeralda I look for her in the kitchen , he
started to insult from head to toe, recriminandolaed by his immoral act and for
having allowed himself to hide his mistress in the four of his masters, and after
scolding the defendant, he went back to his room, and seeming little the
recriminacion that had just To make the defendant, again Mrs. de Esmeralda
returned to the kitchen to reprimand her again, and as the nerves of Mrs. Esmeralda
were not calmed on these two occasions, as she returned to the kitchen, she
undertook new insults to the defendant , in terms that when Mrs. de Esmeralda put
her son to sleep in bed, when she found something dirty the pillowcases, again went
to the kitchen and returned to admonish the defendant Recriminandola and saying
that only wise To have lovers and did not know how to fulfill his duties as a maid.
Scarcely two hours of occurring these insults, occurred the happening which resulted
in the death of the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr.
RULING:
Of course, proof that the accused, a few hours before the event, was the only one of
the House that he had received verbal abuse from the mother of the child, it is a
circumstantial evidence against it. She herself has admitted during his testimony in
that day, she had been scolded by his housekeeper
The accused has not been able to refute this statement of Julian Arab Idol, nor has it
been able to give any explanation why at that precise moment she walked out of the
room to go to the kitchen. It is possible that after the acetic acid in the mouth of the
child, this has not been able to cry immediately, but after a few seconds to feel the
effects of the acid, in such a way that the accused had time to leave the site and
return to the kitchen and being in the room, the boy gave the first cry that made him
open his eyes to Julian Arab Idol. This is another circumstantial evidence strong
enough, in the judgment of the Court, against the accused.
And this attitude of the accused to deny something so obvious and on which the Court
has no doubt, corroborates, in the opinion of the Court, all the circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution.
Therefore, that the defendant, fearing attack Mr and Mrs Emerald Emerald, because
they did not have ensured the implementation of his revenge, has been chosen as a
victim to a defenseless creature From 9 months of age.
That the accused, taking advantage of the occasion on which their masters were
sleeping, he managed a small amount of this substance to that child, burning of the
mouth and throat, as a result of which the child died.
Is declared, therefore, to the Caliso Magdalena accused guilty of the crime of murder,
and believing in the commission of the offense the concurrence of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, because it is a be defenseless, and the circumstances of
the act in one's own home of the parents of the victim, whose circumstances are
compensated with the mitigating circumstances of lack of education and have
worked the accused to impulses of a feeling that have been snatched and
obfuscation, and sentenced him to life imprisonment
the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the
appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased
child's amah. The circumstance of the crime having been committed in the dwelling
of the offended party, considered by the lower court as another aggravating
circumstance, should be disregarded as both the victim and the appellant were
living in the same house. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 136; U.S. vs. Destrito and De
Ocampo, 23 Phil., 28.) Likewise, treachery cannot be considered to aggravate the
penalty as it is inherent in the offense of murder by means of poisoning (3 Viada, p.
29). Similarly the finding of the trial court that the appellant acted under an impulse
so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation should be
discarded because the accused, in poisoning the child, was actuated more by a spirit
of lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable
fury (People vs. Hernandez, 43 Phil., 104, 111) and because such sudden burst of
passion was not provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the victim or of his
parents (U.S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil., 162), since Flora Gonzalez had the perfect right to
reprimand the defendant for indecently converting the family's bedroom into a
rendezvous of herself and her lover.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence being offset by the extenuating
circumstance of defendant's lack of instruction considered by the lower court, the
medium degree of the prescribed penalty should, therefore, be imposed, which, in
this case, is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ABDUL
Facts: 1. That about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of August 19, 1988, Minya Abdul,
Isa Abdul, Maldis Abdul, Inggat Doe and Jowen Appang, went to Sibago Island,
Tuburan, and invited Sahdiya Tanjing, Jubaira Tanjing, Ani Tanjing, Abraham
Annudin, Suri Jannuh, Abdulbaser Tanjiri and Idil Sahirul to go with them to Langil
also at Tuburan Municipality, Province of Basilan for a luncheon (salo-salo); that
these aforenamed persons went with these group of persons because they were
friends. And they do not have any inkling in their minds that these five (5) persons
have sinister plan against their lives and properties.
2. That while they were at Langil at the store of Hadji Salidon, Minya Abdul and Isa
Abdul offered to Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin soft drinks (coke) and biscuits.
3. That while these Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin were drinking the soft drinks,
Minya Abdul got the M16 armalite of Ani Tanjing which the latter was carrying, at
that time and with the said rifle fired at Ani Tanjing resulting in the latters instant
death; and at the same time Isa Abdul also grabbed the M16 rifle of Abraham
Anuddin which the latter was also carrying at that time and with that same
armalite, isa Abdul fired at Abraham Anuddin which also resulted in the latter
instant death. And Jowen Appang also grabbed the M79 rifle of Idil Sahirul which he
also used in firing toward Idil Sahirul and Abdulbaser Tanjiri.
4. That these accused having already armed themselves fired their guns which they
took from Ani Tanjing, Abraham Anuddin and from Idil Sahirul, toward Abdulbaser
Tanjiri, Suri Jannuh and Idil Sahirul who were already running away when they saw
Minya Abdul and Isa Abdul shoot and killed Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin.
5. That after killing Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin, Minya Abdul and Isa Abdul
took the necklace of Abraham Anuddin and the wrist watch of Ani Tanjing. And with
the three (3) firearms, that of Ani Tanjing, Abraham Anuddin and Idil Sahirul, which
these accused got from these victims, the accused left the scene of the shooting.
The lower court rendered its decision finding the accused, Minya Abdul, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with double homicide and triple
frustrated homicide with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation, treachery and by a band without any mitigating to offset
any of them, hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA.
Issue:
1. W a conspiracy existed between the accused-appellant
First of all, a conspiracy existed between the accused-appellant, Isa Abdul, Maldis
Abdul, Jowen Appang, and Inggat Doe. A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.[27] It need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from
the acts of the accused[28]; it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which
the offense was perpetrated when such point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest. [29] Evidence shows that the accused-
appellant, together with Isa Abdul, Maldis Abdul, Jowen Appang, and Inggat Doe all
acted in concert, one performing one part and the other performing another part so
as to execute the crime of robbery with homicide. In a conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all
The lower court erred in convicting the accused of the crime of robbery
with double homicide and triple frustrated homicide. There is no crime of
robbery with multiple homicide under the Revised Penal Code. [35] The
crime is still robbery with homicide notwithstanding the number of
homicides committed on the occasion of a robbery [36] since the homicides
or murders and physical injuries committed on or on occasion or by reason
of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with
homicide
However, when two or more persons are killed on the occasion of the
robbery, the additional killings should be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance to avoid the anomalous situation where, from the standpoint
of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be on the
same level as robbery with multiple killings
2. W the lower court correctly appreciated evident premeditation as an
aggravating circumstance
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proved:
1.) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
2.) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and
3.) sufficient time between such determination and execution to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. [40]
Absent any of these requisites, evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated.[41]
We are not convinced that evident premeditation was sufficiently
proven. The prosecutions evidence did not clearly establish beyond
reasonable doubt two of the three requisites of evident
premeditation, viz., a.) the time when Abdul and his co-accused
determined to commit the crime; and b.) a sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act.Although there are badges of premeditation
in the present case, we can only speculate as to the time elements required
to appreciate evident premeditation. Evident premeditation must be
established by clear and positive evidence and cannot be inferred nor
presumed no matter how logical and probable such inferences or
presumptions might.
3. Treachery
The court a quo therefore correctly found the presence of treachery as an
aggravating circumstance.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.[43] Treachery can be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance in crimes complexed with crimes against
persons[44] provided that the two elements of treachery concur:
(1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously adopted. [45]
As can be seen from the facts of the case, the mode of attack was sudden
and unexpected. The accused-appellant and his cohorts, relying on the friendship
they had with their victims, deceived them into voluntarily giving their firearms to
the accused-appellant for the purpose of testing and examining said
firearms. Thereafter, accused-appellant together with Isa Abdul, suddenly, without
warning, shot their victims who were not aware of the danger against them and
were not in a position to defend themselves.
4. Aggravating circumstance of band
An offense is deemed committed by a band when more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission thereof. [47] This
presupposes that from the onset four of the malefactors were already armed in
order to facilitate the commission of the crime. In the present case, only two of the
five malefactors were armed at the start of the commission of the offense. At any
rate, even assuming that the aggravating circumstance of band was attendant in
the commission of the crime, it is absorbed by treachery