People vs. Comadre (Tan)
20 days after the incident, the victims went to the police station
Topic: Complex Crime: Pro Reo
Crime: Murder with Multiple Attempted Muder
Penalty: Death
Issue: Should the act of appellant in throwing a hand grenade and
killing multiple victims be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty? YES.
Facts:
1. Aug 6, 1995 (7:00pm): the victims have drinking spree on the
terrace of the House of Jaime Agbanlog in Lupao, Nueva Ecija.
Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to
the conversation of the companions of his son.
2. As the drinking session went on, the victim saw the respondents
stopped in front of their house. While his companions looked on,
Antonio suddenly lobbed an object, apparently a hand grenade,
w/c fell on the roof of the terrace. The accused immediately fled
by scaling the fence of a nearby school.
3. The grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house.
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat
and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped
unconscious on the floor. they were all rushed to the hospital
however, Robert Agbanlog died before reaching the same.
4. Expert findings by police and medico-legal found that the
projectile was an MK2 hand grenade and upon autopsy, the
wounds of Robert were consistent with that to be caused by a
grenade blast.
5. [RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS]
a. Antonio Comadre claimed he was watching tv at home
with his family during the incident
b. George Comadre claimed he was home and that he was
in good terms with the victims
c. Danilo Comadre claimed that he hasn’t even seen the
two above in a long time and that he was in good terms
with the victims
d. Antonio’s Father Patricio and his wife Lolita
corroborated his claim
6.
and narrated what happened, positively identifying Antonio
Comadre together with Danilo Lozano and George Comadre
7. RTC: held that the undisputed facts show that when Antonio
threw the grenade, the other two, erely looked on without
uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act
to assist him. However, it held that the mere presence of the two
provided encouragement and a sense of security to Antonio
Thus providing the existence of conspiracy. It found them guilty
of Murder w/ Multiple Frustrated Murder. Ordered for the
death penalty and to pay indemnity and moral damages.
Ratio:
RPC, Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means of committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
1. YES. The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the RPC,
which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the
accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed. The rationale being that the accused who commits
two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser
perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts
and several criminal resolutions.
2. The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade
may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate
and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses
should be considered only as a single crime in law on which
a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled
by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.
3. Under the aforecited article, when a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period irrespective of the presence of modifying
 circumstances, including the generic aggravating circumstance
of treachery in this case. Applying this, the maximum penalty for
the most serious crime (murder) is death. The trial court,
therefore, correctly imposed the death penalty.
4. 3 SC Justices maintain that R.A. 7659 is unconstitutional as it
prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the
majority that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in this
case.
5. PREVIOUS TOPIC: Mere presence in the scene doesn’t
constitute anvenuragment or approval of a felony. Evidence
shows that the two didn’t have any participation in the
commission of the crime and must therefore be set free. Their
mere presence and their close relationship with Antonio are
insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they
performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed

decision is AFFIRMED insofar as appellant Antonio Comadre is
convicted of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted
Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH...
Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are ACQUITTED for
lack of evidence to establish a conspiracy…
In accordance with Section 25 of RA 7659 amending Article 83 of the
RPC, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be
forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of
pardoning power. SO ORDERED.
People vs. Sarcia
Topic: Where the offender is below 18 years old
Crime: Rape
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua
Doctrine: In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance
of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the penalty of Sarcia could be lowered by one
degree because of his minority? YES (From death to reclusion
perpetua)
Facts:
1. AAA, a five-year old girl, together with her cousin and two other
playmates, were playing the yard of Saling Crisologo near a
mango tree
2. Suddenly, Richard Sarcia, (presumed 18 years old because
lack of the exact date of rape committed) appeared and invited
AAA to go with him in the backyard of Crisologo’s house.
(Where she followed him)
3. When they arrived, Sarcia removed the short’s and underwear
of AAA; also removed his trousers and brief
4. He ordered AAA to lie down on her back
5. Then, he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into AAA’s
private organ. Appellant made an up- and-down movement
("Nagdapadapa tabi"), AAA felt severe pain and exclaimed
“Aray”.
6. However, AAA’s cousin saw what had happened and
instinctively rushed to the house of AAA’s mother and told her
aunt what she had seen. But she did not mind it because they
were still young to know such matters.
7. When Sarcia was done, he ordered AAA to put on her clothes
and then left.
8. When AAA went back to her house she did not tell her mother
because she feared she might get slapped.
9. But when her mother washed her body she felt a grating
sensation in her vagina,
10. Sarcia’s conviction was then affirmed upon appeal, crediting
AAA’s testimony and her cousin’s as well, despite certain
inconsistencies
a. Testimony
i. Cousin of AAA - she and AAA were playing;
while raped occured AAA shouted; after the
incident she saw AAA crying; other people were
playing
ii. AAA - she was not doing anything at that time;
she merely said “aray”; after she wore her
clothes she invited her cousin to their house;
they were only four of them.
b. Confused on the date and time of the offense committed
c. Four-year delay in the filing of the case
d. Also, to help in the case of Salvacion Bobier get a
conviction in a murder case
*However, it does not affect the outcome of the case
RTC Ruling:
Guilty of rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
CA Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. The
accused, Richard Sarcia y Olivera, is ordered to suffer the penalty of
DEATH,
SC Ruling: YES. The penalty imposed on Sarcia can be lowered to
one degree from death to reclusion perpetua
Under RA. 7659, penalty of death shall be imposed when the
victim of rape is a child below seven years old. In this case, AAA, was
5 years old at the time of the commission of the offense - proved by her
birth certificate. Hence, death penalty should be imposed.
However, would modify the penalty imposed by the CA. Since
prosecution was unable to prove the exact date and time when the rape
was committed, it is uncertain that the crime of rape was committed on
or after he reached 18 years old. In assessing the attendance of the
mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved in
favor of the accused.

Under Art. 68 RPC, when the offender is a minor under 18 years

old, penalty next lower than that prescribed shall be imposed but in the
proper period. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion
perpetua.

Regarding suspension of sentence:

The court also looked into Sec. 38 of RA 9344, which provides
for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in convict with the
law, even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at the time he/she
is found guilty of the offense charged. Although, P.D. No. 603 and A.M.
No. 02-1-18-SC, state that the benefit of suspended sentence would
not apply to a child in conflict with the law, if he/she has been convicted
of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. Since RA 9344 did not state a minor who was convicted
of a capital punishment, thus the Court cannot distinguish. (when the
law does not distinguish, the court cannot distinguish)

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS : (1) the penalty of death imposed on accused-
appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua. However, the case shall
be REMANDED to the court a quo for appropriate disposition in
accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.
People vs. Gambao
Topic: Where the offender is below 18 years old; Accomplice in
Kidnapping with Ransom
Crime: Kidnapping for Ransom
Penalty: Accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIE
KARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y SULA,
RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN
MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL and NORA
EVAD y MULOK are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole
Accused-appellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON A.K.A. LARINA
PERPENIAN is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplice in
the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision
Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision
Mayor, as maximum
Doctrine: Considering that Perpenian acted with discernment when
she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, her
minority should be appreciated not as an exempting circumstance, but
as a privileged mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code. Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law shall still be
applied even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Unfortunately, at the
present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer benefit from the aforesaid
provision, because under Article 40 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension
of sentence can be availed of only until the child in conflict with the law
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. This leaves the
Court with no choice but to pronounce judgement.
Issue: Whether or not Perpenian be convicted as an accomplice from
the said crime of Kidnapping for Ransom? And if yes is she entitled to
a mitigating circumstance since she was 17 years old during the
commission of the crime? Yes, she will be convicted as an accomplice
and also entitled to a special mitigating circumstance of minority.
Facts:
1.Lucia chan was a fish dealer and has suppliers delivering the fish she
sells from the province. One the afternoon two persons, one of whom
was identified as Theng Dilangalen went to her residence, inquiring
about a passport which was allegedly misplaced inside one of the fish
shipments about to be sent to her. Not being able to locate it, they left.
2.During the following day, Dilangalen was accompanied by an
unidentified person returned to the house of Chan and was met the
houseboy. Suddenly, the unidentified person pointed a gun to Levy
(Chan’s son) and their house companions. After which, Chan was
dragged to board a “Tamaraw FX” van. Levy, then proceeded to the
police headquarter.
3.After travelling for two house, Chan was then transported to a house
and was ordered to lie down in a room, which was guarded by the
Ronas, Evad, Dukilman, and Macalinbol. Chan was then threatened
that she will be killed unless a ransom of 20M was paid.
4.Days passed, Chan was then transported to a new house (RESORT);
she was then ordered to enter a room, which was guarded by
Macalinbol, Udal, and Gambao. In the evening, a woman appeared in
the said resort, later identified as Perpenian. Chan was then instructed
to talk to her son to prepare the payment for release. The agreed
amount was 400,000 to be delivered at the “Chowking” restaurant at
Buendia.
5.Ouano and Mancao (inspectors), were assigned to take and
investigate the case. They were later informed that the kidnappers
demanded a ransom. The next day, the inspectors saw a red taxi cab,
which came from the victim’s residence. Thus, being suspicious of the
said vehicle, the inspectors followed the red cab and saw it enter
Elizabeth Resort in Pansol, Laguna. They believe that Chan was kept
in the resort.
6.After getting information about the exchange of 400,000 for lucia’s
freedom, they positioned themselves within the vicinity of the said
restaurant. There, after the exchange, they apprehended the persons
that facilitated the transaction and also recovered the ransom money.
7.Thereafter, they went to the resort where they rescued the victim,
Lucia Chan. They apprehended 7 of her abductors namely Dilangalen,
Udal, Macalindol, Mandao, Perpenian, Evad, and Ronas.
8.They changed their plea of guilt from not guilty to guilty hence, they
were charged and convicted for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
Hence, in their petition in the SC, they argue that they were not properly
informed of the consequences of their change of plea and that
conspiracy was not properly proven in the case at bar
RTC ruling: Convicted the 7 of them for the crime of kidnapping for
ransom and was sentenced with the supreme penalty of death.
CA ruling: Affirmed the conviction of the 7 appellants but modified the
penalty of Perpenian to relcusion perpetua because she was 17 years
old when the crime was committed.
SC ruling:
The Court affirmed the conviction of the 6 appellants as co
principals of the said crime and modified Perpenian criminal liability as
only as accomplice. The Court convicted the 6 appellants in the basis
that conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. This Court has
held before that to be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one
is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals. Moreover, Chan positively identified the
appellants.
The testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common
purpose of the accused-appellants and how they were all united in its
execution from beginning to end. There were testimonies proving that
(1) before the incident, two of the accused- appellants kept coming back
to the victim’s house; (2) during the kidnapping, accused-appellants
changed shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the accused appellants
were those present when the ransom money was recovered and when
the rescue operation was conducted.
The Court stated that Perpenian be convicted as an accomplice
stating that her defense of thinking that there was swimming party was
the reason of her presence is not tenable. It has been held before that
being present and giving moral support when a crime is being
committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the
crime committed. It should be noted that Perpenian’s presence and
company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of
the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice.
Laslty, Considering that Perpenian acted with discernment
when she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense,
her minority should be appreciated not as an exempting circumstance,
but as a privileged mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code. Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law shall still be
applied even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Unfortunately, at the
present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer benefit from the aforesaid
provision, because under Article 40 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension
of sentence can be availed of only until the child in conflict with the law
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. This leaves the
Court with no choice but to pronounce judgement. the penalty imposed
by law on accomplices in the commission of consummated kidnapping
for ransom is Reclusion Temporal, the penalty one degree lower than
what the principals would bear (Reclusion Perpetua). Applying Article
68 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should then be
adjusted to the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law for
accomplices. This Court, therefore, holds that as to Perpenian, the
penalty of Prision Mayor, the penalty lower than that prescribed by law
(Reclusion Temporal), should be imposed. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum penalty, which is one degree lower than
the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of Prision
Correccional; and the maximum penalty shall be within the minimum
period of Prision Mayor, absent any aggravating circumstance and
there being one mitigating circumstance.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, the 28 June 2005 Decision of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00863 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL,
EDDIE KARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y
SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING,
JAMAN MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL and
NORA EVAD y MULOK are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole. Accused-
appellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON A.K.A. LARINA PERPENIAN
is found guilty beyond reasonable CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019
cdasiaonline.com doubt as accomplice in the crime of kidnapping for Colinares v People
ransom and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) Topic: Effects of Probation Law; Probation on Appeal
years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as maximum. Doctrine: The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires that
Accusedappellants are ordered to indemnify the victim in the amounts an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail
of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and himself of probation. This requirement “outlaws the element of
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages apportioned in the following speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the result of his
manner: the principals to the crime shall jointly and severally pay the appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the
victim the total amount of P288,000.00 while the accomplice shall pay moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence
the victim P12,000.00, subject to Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code inevitable, he now applies for probation as an ‘escape hatch’ thus
on several and subsidiary liability. rendering nugatory the appellate court’s affirmance of his conviction.”

Crime: Attempted Homicide

Penalty: Four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and
four months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay Rufino P.
Buena the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages
Issue: Whether or not Arnel is entitled to probation given that he was
convicted for a lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty from
his appeal? YES
Facts:
1. Rufino (victim) testified that during the evening, he and Jesus
went out to buy cigarettes at a nearby store.
2. Jesus excused himself to take a piss. Suddenly, Colinares
(accused) then appeared and hit Rufino with a large piece of
stone (15.5 inches in diameter) which resulted the latter to be
unconscious. Another testimony by Ananias also corroborated
the story.
3. Ananias Jallores (Ananias) testified that he was walking home
when he saw Rufino lying by the roadside. Ananias tried to help
but someone struck him with something hard on the right
temple, knocking him out. He later learned that Arnel had hit
him.
4. Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole incident
since he happened to be smoking outside his house. He sought
the help of a barangay tanod and they brought Rufino to the
hospital.
5. Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate showing
that Rufino suffered two lacerated wounds on the forehead,
along the hairline area. The doctor testified that these injuries
were serious and potentially fatal but Rufino chose to go home
after initial treatment.
6. Colinares contends that he acted merely in self defense.
However the Court convicted him of the following: (please refer
to RTC and CA Ruling)
RTC Ruling: Frustrated Homicide; prision correcional ( 2 years and 4
months) to prision mayor ( 6 years and 1 day); not entitled to probation
(due to imprisonment must not exceed 6 years)
CA Ruling: Frustrated Homicide; prision correcional ( 2 years and 4
months) to prision mayor ( 6 years and 1 day); not entitled to probation
(due to imprisonment must not exceed 6 years)
SC Ruling: The Court modified the conviction to attempted homicide.
Likewise, the Court stated that the accused was entitled to probation
because his amended penalty did not exceed the limit. The conviction
was modified from frustrated to attempted because the evidence
presented stated that the wound in the head was not fatal enough to
cause death. Likewise, the following were considered for the
modification: 1.) After treatment he was discharged 2.) the healing
period was only 7 to 8 days 3.) the testimony of the doctor stating the it
is not fatal. The contention of self defense was not appreciated because
there was no witness corroborating the testimony of the accused stating
that the victim and his companions attacked him first.
On probation, the Court allowed him to apply for probation on
the following grounds: 1.) the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser
crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty
imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision
correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to
allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to
the RTC. 2.) That although probation may not be used if an appeal was
made, he is entitled to it because had the RTC did not err imposing the
proper penalty, he will be entitled to probation. 3.) The Probation Law
never intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no
fault of his. The underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality
towards the accused. 4.) Arnel raised the issue of correctness of the
penalty imposed on him. He claimed that the evidence at best
warranted his conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide,
which crime called for a probationable penalty. In a way, therefore,
Arnel sought from the beginning to bring down the penalty to the level
where the law would allow him to apply for probation. 5.) The ruling in
Francisco was not applicable in the case at bar because this ruling, the
accused was entitled to parole when he appealed (thus, it prompted
that the accused waive. his right for probation when he appealed) unlike
Colinares who wasn’t eligible for probation in his first conviction.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition,
MODIFIES the Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR 29639, FINDS petitioner Arnel Colinares GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of attempted homicide, and SENTENCES him to
suffer an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to pay Rufino P. Buena the amount of P20,000.00 as
moral damages, without prejudice to petitioner applying for probation
within 15 days from notice that the record of the case has been
remanded for execution to the Regional Trial Court of San Jose,
Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213. SO ORDERED.

Dissenting Opinions:

Peralta, J:

1. Probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender; the

Probation Law is not a penal law for it to be liberally construed
to favor the accused.
2. Originally, P.D. No. 968 allowed the filing of an application for
probation even if an appeal had been perfected by the
convicted offender under Section 4; With the subsequent
amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 by P.D. No. 1990, the
application for probation is no longer allowed if the accused
has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
3. Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as
mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable
about it.