Aggravating: Abuse of Confidence
The defendant Magdalena
PEOPLE VS. MAGDALENA CALISO
58 Phil. 283 01 JUL 1933
FACTS: On the afternoon of February 8, 1932, while the
spouses Emilio Esmeralda and Flora Gonzalez were
sleeping taking a nap, suddenly Ms. de Esmeralda
suddenly awoke because I heard a cry acute son of
Emilio Esmeralda, 9 months old, who was sleeping in a
bed opposite the place where she was sleeping with her
husband. When Ms. de Esmeralda arrived, followed by
her husband, to the bed where she had left her son
asleep, when she lifted the mosquito net from the bed,
she immediately perceived a strong odor of acetic acid
and found her son, who was still crying heavily, with
white eyes, swollen and whitish lips, and a bruised face,
and when he perceived the smell of acetic acid in the
child's breath. Then she shouted asking who had put
acetic acid in the mouth of her son, and since she is a
pharmacist by profession, she immediately agreed on
an antidote that could neutralize the effects of acetic
acid and she herself lime water and wetting a
hydrophilic cotton, cleaned the boy's mouth, and at the
same time sent his husband to telephone the doctor.
After some time, they arrived, from Bacolod,
Drs. Orosa and Ochoa, who by telephone had also been
called by the victim's father. Dr. Orosa is the chief
physician of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and
Dr. Ochoa is one of the doctors residing in that hospital,
a specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both doctors
stated positively that they had perceived the odor of
acetic acid in the child's breathing, and having
concluded that the boy had become acetic acid, applied
the cure to remove that substance from the child's
body, and after making the first cures, took the child to
the provincial hospital and died there a few minutes
after arriving.
A few hours before the event, the accused –
Magdalena Caliso, being a house maid to the the
Esmeralda, was the only one in the house who had
received insults from the child's mother. None had any
reason for resentment toward any of the deceased's
family members other than the accused. The
prosecution found circumstantial evidences that are
made towards her accusation. She herself admitted
during her testimony that on that day she had been
rebuked by her mistress.
Caliso is therefore found guilty of the crime of murder,
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of
grave abuse of confidence is present in the case.
RULING: Yes. Grave abuse of confidence was present
since appellant was a domestic servant of the family. It
is inherent in the offense of murder by means of
poisoning. In poisoning the child, it was actuated more
by a spirit of lawlessness and revenge than any sudden
boost of natural and uncontrollable fury. It was not
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the victim
or his parents.
PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ONG Y KHO
GR No. L-34497, Jan 30, 1975
159 Phil. 212 | 62 SCRA 174
FERNANDEZ, J.
FACTS: On or about April 23 to April 24, 1971, in the
municipality of Parañaque, province of Rizal, the
accused (1) Benjamin Ong y Kho, (2) Bienvenido Quintos
y Sumaljag, (3) Fernando Tan, alias, "Oscar Tan," and (4)
Baldomero Ambrosio alias "Val”, being then private
individuals, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and with treachery and known
premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry
Chua and thereafter extorting money from his family
through the use of a ransom note, kidnap(ped) and
carry(ied) away said Henry Chua, initially by means of a
friendly gesture and later through the use of force, in an
automobile, and later after having taken him to an
uninhabited place in Caloocan City, with the use of force
detained him (Henry Chua) and killed) him in the
following manner to wit: The accused after gagging and
tying up Henry Chua and repeatedly threatening him
with death, assured him that if he would write and sign
a ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum
of $50,000.00 (US), he would not be killed and would be
released upon receipt of the ransom money, but after
said Henry Chua agreed and did execute such a ransom
note, he was again gagged and tied up by the accused,
and thereafter stabbed in the abdominal region, several
times with an icepick, inflicting upon him (Henry Chua)
mortal wounds on his vital organs, which directly
caused his death.

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of

grave abuse of confidence is present in the case.

RULING: No. In order for the aggravating circumstance

of abuse of confidence to obtain, it is necessary that
there be a relation of trust and confidence between the
accused and the one against whom the crime was
committed, and that the accused made use of such
relation to commit the crime,[59] It is essential too that
the confidence be a means of facilitating the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of
the offended party's belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence.[60]

Nowhere in the records does it appear that Henry Chua

reposed confidence upon the person of Benjamin Ong.
If any, Henry Chua was simply not afraid of Benjamin
Ong, having told and bragged to the latter about his
violent exploits in the past and threatened him with
bodily harm in case of failure to pay.[61] He knew that
he was far stronger than Benjamin Ong in terms of
influence and money. He thought that Benjamin Ong
would fear him. The fact that Henry Chua invited Ong
for nightclubbing that fatal evening and accommodated
him in his car on their way home from the nightclub
does not mean that Henry Chua had confidence in him.
There was no special relation of confidence between
them. He knew that Benjamin owed him a substantial
amount and that its settlement had long been overdue
which fact irritated him very much. Benjamin Ong and
Henry Chua were together that night in the nightclub as
well as in the car not because of said confidence. It was
simply because Benjamin Ong had some accounts to
settle with him.