RODOLFO GUEVARRA and JOEY GUEVARRA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 170462 February 5, 2014

Facts:

That on or about the 8th day of January, 2000, in the municipality of Alicia, province of
Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring,
confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill and without any just motive, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack, hack and stab for several times
with a sharp pointed bolo one David Ordonez, who as a result thereof, suffered multiple hack and
stab wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused his death.

Although the informations stated that the crimes were committed on January 8, 2000, the
true date of their commission is November 8, 2000, as confirmed by the CA through the records. The
parties failed to raise any objection to the discrepancy.

On arraignment, the petitioners pleaded not guilty to both charges. The cases were jointly
tried with the conformity of the prosecution and the defense. At the pre-trial, the petitioners
interposed self-defense, which prompted the RTC to conduct a reverse trial of the case.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Frustrated Homicide.

Ruling:

The crime of frustrated homicide is committed when: (1) an "accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal
wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying
circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present."

The petitioners' intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained
by their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other
things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of,
or immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds
sustained by the victim. The CA aptly observed that the ten (10) hack/stab wounds David suffered
and which eventually caused his death, and the thirteen (13) hack/stab wounds Erwin sustained,
confirmed the prosecution's theory that the petitioners purposely and vigorously attacked David and
Erwin.

In fact, the petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that "the wounds inflicted on the victim Erwin Ordonez
would have caused his death were it not for immediate medical attendance."
PP v. WILFREDO GUNDA

G.R. No. 195525 February 5, 2014

Facts:

At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 25, 1997, the victim, Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son,
Eladio Jr., were walking along a trail at Sitio Candulungon, Barangay Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern
Samar. Suddenly, when Eladio Jr. was about 10 meters ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid
by appellant and his unidentified companions. The John Does held the victim's arms whereupon
appellant stabbed him several times. Fearing for his life, Eladio Jr. fled. The unidentified assailants
pursued him. Fortunately, he was able to outrun them and was able to reach their house. In the
morning of the following day, Eladio Jr. went to the house of his sister and informed her of the death
of their father. They then reported the incident to the police authorities who eventually arrested the
appellant. The body of the victim was recovered and post-mortem examinations revealed that he
suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death.

Aside from Eladio Jr., Teofilo Ambal, Jr. (Ambal) who is a brother-in-law of the appellant, also
witnessed the crime. In the afternoon of May 25, 1997, while Ambal was at his farm gathering feeds
for his pigs, he saw appellant who was armed with a wooden pole position himself at the back of the
victim and strike the latter’s head with the wood. The companions of appellant then held the victim’s
arms whereupon appellant drew a bolo locally known as depang from his waist and stabbed the
victim several times. Fearing for his life, Ambal likewise left the crime scene.

Issue: Whether or not Guada is guilty of murder.

Ruling:

Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence
served to characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty. Since treachery
qualified the commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no longer be appreciated
anew as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
Furthermore, although there was conspiracy in this case, it is neither a qualifying circumstance [nor]
a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.
PP v. JAVIER MORILLA

G.R. No. 189833 February 5, 2014

Facts:

That on or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran, Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, one of
them an incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
organized/syndicate crime group as they all help one another, for purposes of gain in the transport of
illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding and abetting one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously transport by means of two (2) motor
vehicles, namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT-888 with commemorative plate to read
"Mayor" and a municipal ambulance of Panukulan, Quezon Province, methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is commonly known as shabu, and with an approximate
weight of five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos, without authority whatsoever.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on 1 August 2007 convicted Morilla and his co-
accused Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of Panukulan, Quezon, of illegal transport of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, with an approximate weight of five
hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos. However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the
prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to convict them of the offense charged.

Issue: WON Morilla is guilty of transporting illegal drugs.

Ruling:

Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act
means "to carry or convey from one place to another." It was well established during trial that Morilla
was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to
Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is
punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing
dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge. Hence,
the accused was convicted.
RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO v. Pp

G.R. No. 188694 February 12, 2014

Facts:

Atienza and Castro (petitioners) are employees of the CA, particularly assigned to its Budget
Division and holding the positions of Budget Officer I and Utility Worker I, respectively, at the time
material to this case.

On March 24, 1995, after office hours, Atibula saw Dario outside the CA compound along Maria
Orosa Street. As they walked side by side towards the jeepney stop, Dario requested Atibula to
insert a Decision dated September 26, 1968 in one of the volumes of the CA Original Decisions.
However, Atibula refused and immediately left.

On April 21, 1995, Atienza offered Atibula the amount of P50,000.00 in exchange for Volume
260, which the latter turned down. Atienza then ridiculed him saying, "duwag ka, pera na nga ito
ayaw mo pa," to which Atibula retorted, "ikaw ang duwag dahil nagpapakita ka ng kabuktutan."

Disturbed by the situation, Atibula reported the incident to Atty. Arnel Macapagal (Atty. Macapagal),
the Assistant Chief of the CA Reporter’s Division, who then instructed him (Atibula) to hide Volumes
260, 265 and 267 in a safe place.

On May 9, 1995, Atibula discovered that Volume 266 covering the period from January 28 to
February 12, 1969 was missing and, hence, immediately reported the same to Atty. Macapagal. Two
days after the discovery of the loss, Atibula encountered Atienza near the canteen, shouting
"[p]utang ina mo, Juaning, pinahirapan mo kami!"

On May 18, 1995, a certain Nelson de Castro, Clerk IV detailed at the CA Reporter’s
Division, handed to Atibula a bag containing a gift-wrapped package which turned out to be the
missing Volume 266. He claimed that it was Castro who asked him to deliver the said package to
Atibula.

After investigation, the charges involving the pertinent provisions of RAs 3019 and 6713 were
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, but it was contrarily determined that there existed probable
cause to charge Atienza, Castro, and Dario for the crimes of Robbery under Article 299(a)(1) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and of Falsification of Public Document under Article
172(1) in relation to Article 171(6) of the same code. Thus, the corresponding
Informations, respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 01-197425 and 01-197426, were filed
before the RTC. Petitioners posted bail and, thereafter, pleaded "not guilty" to the charges during
their arraignment, while Dario remained at large.

Issue: WON the petitioners are guilty of Falsification under Art. 172, par.1.

Ruling:

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main
fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction
if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person.
Stated differently, the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is
sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be consistent
with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt
and inconsistent with his innocence.
DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM v. People

G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014

Facts:

Gerald Albert Gercayo (Gerald) was born on June 2, 1992 with an imperforate anus. Two days after
his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine
out through the abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the
side of his body.

On May 17, 1995, Gerald, then three years old, was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-
through operation. Dr. Leandro Resurreccion headed the surgical team, and was assisted by Dr.
Joselito Luceño, Dr. Donatella Valeña and Dr. Joseph Tibio. The anesthesiologists included Dr.
Marichu Abella, Dr. Arnel Razon and petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum (Dr. Solidum). During the
operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia,7 and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two
weeks, but he regained consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or move.

Agitated by her son’s helpless and unexpected condition, Ma. Luz Gercayo (Luz) lodged a complaint
for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries with the City Prosecutor’s Office of
Manila against the attending physicians.

Issue: WON Dr. Solidum is guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries.

Ruling:

The Prosecution did not prove the elements of reckless imprudence beyond reasonable doubt
because the circumstances cited by the CA were insufficient to establish that Dr. Solidum had been
guilty of inexcusable lack of precaution in monitoring the administration of the anesthetic agent to
Gerald. The Court aptly explained in Cruz v. Court of Appeals that:

Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his
patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the
profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. In the recent case of
Leonila Garcia-Rueda v. Wilfred L. Pacasio, et. al., this Court stated that in accepting a case, a
doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and
surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of
his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably
competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this aspect of
medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of
the profession but also that the physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below such
standard. Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are
determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is
usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation.