TREACHERY

People Vs. Verchez

-the accused was charged of Murder and frustrated murder 

FACTS: Task force was conducting a surveillance operation on a house reported to be the hideout of
a gang of suspected bank robbers at a subdivision. They escorted a blue toyota car carried by Balane
going to the said place. As they came nearer, the firing started from the hideout and then continued
exchanging fire between the two group. Sgt Norcio died while Cpl Noora and Wilfredo sustained
injuries but survived.

-the accused was charged of Homicide, frustrated Homicide, illegal possession of firearms

Aggravating circumstances: 1. disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank-
not considered because there were no evidence that they purposely disregard respect due to the
victim since lawmen were in civilian.

-2. Treachery was  not sufficiently established. There must be 1. the employment of the means
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate 2. the said
means of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted. In this case the lawmen were
prepared for the encounter of the said gang well intact, they escorted Balane to the said place for
the encounter. They were well equipped also and that the victim were attacked during the
encounter not before it.

People Vs. Sangalang

-the accused was charged of MURDER

FACTS: Ricardo Cortez left their hut to gather tuba from the coconut nearby. While he was on the
top of the coconut tree, he was struck by a valley of shot and fell on the ground. Then 5 armed men
successively fired the victim while lying under the coconut tree. Wife Flora tried to approach her
husband but stopped by the fired of the armed men. She then hide in their Nipa Hut.

-the accused was charged of murder with qualifying treachery which absorbed the aggravating
circumstances of Band
-Treachery was accepted by the court since it showed the sudden attacked of the armed men.

People Vs. Castillo

-the accused was charged Murder

FACTS: Victim Tony was about to live the COLA PUB house along EDSA where he was working and
said goodbye to his co-worker Velasco, when suddenly Castillo appeared from nowhere and stabbed
the victim on his left chest. The victim cried for help and Velasco placed plastic chair between the
victim and the accused to prevent the attacking. The victim had a chance to run but unfortunately,
he was chased by Castillo. Velasco heard that Dometita died on that day.

-the court evident premeditation was unable to prove because requisites were lacking. 
-there were no superior strength because the prosecution did not demonstrate that there was a
marked difference in the stature and build of the victim and the appellant . 
-the court held that the killing was qualified by treachery. The requisites are evidently present when
the accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim. The said
action rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of defense wounds does
not negate treachery because the first stab was fatal. The incised wounds in the arms were inflicted
when the victim was already rendered defenseless.

People Vs. Piedad & Lito Garcia

-the accused was charged of Murder while Palma was acquitted

FACTS: Victim Mateo together with Andrew where having drinking session over one bottle of Rhum.
Suddenly, Niel with Richard started a fight against the two by strucking Mateo in the head of the
bottle of Rhum. Andrew saw the scene and hit Neil of a plastic chair. Then the two escaped and
returned with a gang. The gang started to assault the two victims causing Mateo to injure in the
head and had stabbed wounds at the back. While the incident happened, Luz wife of Mateo tried to
protect and succor her husband from the assault but failed because the (8) gang was too strong to
retaliate. Mateo died of severe hemorrhage in the head and stabbed wound at the back.

-The accused was charged of Murder, treachery as qualifying circumstances. Treachery was proved
because of the manner of attacking the victim constitute treachery. 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 specially to ensure its execution without risk. Treachery
must prove 1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself 2.
That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by
him. In this case Mateo did not have any chance of defending himself from the accused. Mateo is
overpowered and helpless. The stone was treacherously struck.

People vs. Dumadag

-the accused was charged of Murder with qualifying treachery

FACTS: The group of Prudente and Meliston agreed to celebrate the feast of St. John. As they were
heading home, they decided to stay at the store because the rain was pouring at that time. They
saw the appellant having drinking session with the other one and invited them to have some drink.
However, Prudente refused to drink and left. The accused suddenly rose from his seat and stabbed
the victim on the breast

-The accused was charged of Homicide instead because treachery was not presumed.

-Treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The mode of attack must be planned by the
offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. The rule does not apply if the
attack was not preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of the appellant on the act made by
the victim.

IGNOMINY
People Vs. Bumidang

-the accused was charged of rape with the use of deadly weapon imposed of lethal injection
-appreciated aggravating circumstances of 1. dwelling 2. nighttime 3. ignominy
FACTS: Gloria Imbat and her father Malencio were already sleeping when the accused called from
outside and asked to open the door. The accused threatened the 80 yr old man if he will not be able
to open the door. Then the accused asked for the room of his daughter (56) which were only
operated by the a-parador. Bumindang went to the room still carrying the sphere and started the
sexual intercourse with the victim. The accused also had lighted the genitalia of the victim to have
closer look and examine. 

-dwelling is appreciated because there is clear violation of the sanctity of the victim’s place of abode
2. nothing proved that the accused deliberately sought for the night time and since he was able to
reveal hisself with flashlight 3. Ignominy should be considered since it add to the natural effects of
the offense or committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating to the victim
that is add to her moral suffering 

-accused was charged of RAPE with the use of deadly weapon and 2 aggravating circumstances

People Vs. Cachola

-the accused CACHOLA & AMAY was charged of  4 counts of murder and other as accomplices 

FACTS: Jessie was about to leave the house to watch cartoons in his uncle house next door when two
armed men suddenly entered the front door of their house. The two ordered jessie to drop to the
floor and then hit him in the butt with long gun. The accused shot dead Victorino, who was then in
the living room, theme entered in the kitchen and continued shooting, while Jessie had a chance to
hide under the bed. When the shooting was over and after the malefactors had already departed ,
Jessie saw his mother, brother and cousin have been already slaughtered.

 the information alleges the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident pre
meditation. There is no doubt as to the killing  considering the assailants suddenly barged in
and immediately shoot all the members of the family. when the act is sudden and
unexpected, there is treachery.
 evident pre meditation was not proved because of lack of evidence of planning and
preparation
 Ignominy to be considered must be committed in a manner that tends to  make it effect
more humiliating thus adding to the victims moral suffering. And since the body was already
dead, it will not be considered. No allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
 dwelling was considered because it was alleged and proved that they were killed inside their
house.
 AMAY AND CACHOLA was charged of 4 counts of murder while the rest were acquitted

People Vs. Siao

-the accused was charged of RAPE and Reylan being acquitted because he acted under impulse of
uncontrollable fear of an equal if not greater injury.

FACTS: Estrella and Reylan are both helper of appellant Rene Siao. Estrella was 14yrs old probinsya
and cousin of JOY who was also a helper in the house. One day appellant ordered Reylan Gimena to
pull Ester to the room of women. Reylan dragged her towards the women's quarters and once
inside, the accused pushed her to the wooden bed. The accused was  pointing a pistol all the time to
those helpers. Ester was tied up with the use of cord and ordered by the accused to remove her
pants and t shirt. Appellant then ordered Reylan to remove his shorts but Gimena refused instead he
just let his penis out. Accused then ordered Reylan to rape Ester. There are 4 sexual act happened
one is oral sex and the other is unusual position.

-IGNOMINY was considered. It has been held that where the accused committing the rape used not
only the missionary position but also the dog position as dogs do entry from behind, as we proven
like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstances of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.

People Vs. Syalan

-the accused was charged of RAPE

FACTS: One afternoon, Eutropia went to the public market thereafter proceeded to the store of her
mother to fetch her 5 yr old daughter. Eutropia and Nilsonita boarded a passenger jeepney and
while inside the vehicle she noticed that the other passenger were RUDY GONZALES-grade 1 pupil
and RAFAEL SAYLAN and a couple. The jersey went only as fas as MALINAS CITRUS FARM because
the road to Barrio Malinao was not passable by vehicles. It was already 630 in the evening, the
passengers were all alighted the vehicle and started to walk. The couple went to different direction
and the appellant joined the group of EUTROPIA. While walking, the accused suddenly grabbed the
victim and dragged to the creek near the coconut tree 5 meters aways from the children. The
accused succeeded to have 5 sexual act which one is uncommon.

-the accused was charged of RAPE with IGNOMINY as aggravating circumstances.

There is ignominy because of the use of UNCOMMON position not only missionary position. The
appellant alleged that it is already common to partners or couple, but in that case they were even
strangers to each other.

-SUPERIORITY was inherent to the crime RAPE

-UNINHABITED PLACE was considered because the accused dragged the victim away from the
children where no one will be seen the commission.
-NO REITERACION since Robbery by Band was committed after the the RAPE case and that
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE is lighter than the penalty of RAPE
-Disregard of rank is not also considered because there are no deliberate intent to offend or insult
the victim

UNLAWFUL ENTRY
People Vs. Baello

-the accused was charged of crime of robbery with homicide aggravating unlawful entry

FACTS: 2am in the morning, the accused forced to enter the residence of Brgy captain Eustacio
Reyes by the window of the room of his daughter at the 2 nd Floor. Brgy Captain woke up and find out
that their TV in the sala went missing. They climbed upstairs and saw their daughter bathed with her
own blood lifeless already. The victim suffered 4 stabbed wounds. The couple noticed that the
jewelry box was open and also the camera and stereo cassette recorded were also missing.
Meantime, the accused leave by the stair the TV set in the house of his sister.
-the accused was charged of robbery with homicide

-Aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry was considered since they had entered the Borja
Residence through second floor window, a way not intended for ingress. Nocturnity was also
considered because they sought for the commission of the crime at night time where everyone was
sleeping.

CRUELTY
People VS. LACAO

-the accused was charged of murder qualifying treachery evident of pre meditation

FACTS: Evening around hundred person foregathered in Francisco Labo’s House for the wake of the
deceased. Gallardo decoded to of home. As he was descending the stairs, Baltazar Lacao followed
him called him Serser and stabbed him with a knife at the right side of his body. Baltazar tried to pull
out the knife. Gallardo ran and Baltazar followed him. When Gallardo reached the bamboo grove he
was assaulted by the company of Baltazar. Gallardo sustained 14 wounds as he was dragged to the
field. The victim died because of massive wounds caused by different bladed weapon.

-the accused was charged of HOMICIDE instead

-No treachery because it was not alleged in the information but considered as generic aggravating.
Evident pre meditation and alevosia were not proven. Abuse of superiority was proven but not
alleged in the information.

-the cruelty was not appreciated because even though the victim was inflicted of 14 wounds it was
executed not only by one person but two or more. Numerous of the wounds is not the criterion of
appreciating cruelty. The test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the
victim’s suffering  or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.

People Vs. Ilaoa

-the accused was charged of Murder with aggravating evident premeditation, abuse of superior
strength and cruelty

FACTS: The accused together with the victim and kumpanyeros were having a drinking session that
night. The drunken voices of Ruben and Nestor engaged an apparent argument was later on heard.
Nestor was seen being kicked and mauled by Ruben and his brother with other company outside
Ruben’s apartment. Nestor cried for and begged to stop the assault but the accused did not listen
but rather continue the mauling. Dissatisfied, the company brought the victim inside where he was
last seen alive. Ilaoa, borrowed tricycle from his neighbors to dispose the body of the victim away
form the crime scene. The victim acquired 24 stabbed wounds on his chest with burns all over the
body.

-The accused was charged of HOMICIDE instead because there are no proofs as evidences the
aggravating circumstances (cruelty, abuse of superior strength, premeditation)

People Vs. Cataian, Sumalpong & Calunod

-the accused was convicted of murder

FACTS: One night at around 11 pm, the witness saw 3 men ganging up Willy Ondo. It started when
Catain hit the victim using chako on the back of his head. Also Calunod hit the victim using a piece of
wood on his mounth. Together they mauled the victim until fall in his knees. Then Sumalpong carried
the victim to unknown place. The body of the victim was burned to conceal his whereabout.

-the accused acted as conspiracy in committing murder with treachery or alevosia because of the
sudden or unexpected attack.

-Evident premeditation because of lacking evidence. No cruelty of Ignomy because the mere fact the
burning of the body does not sufficiently show the means employed added ignominy to the natural
effects. No cruelty because, it was not proved the burning of the body while he is still alive. Cruelty
exist when the accused delighted in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually causing
unnecessary physical and moral pain in the commission of the crime. No proof was presented as to
suffering.

People VS Guerrero Jr & Sr

-the accused were convicted of murder

FACTS: Ernesto was having an illicit relationship with the daughter of Dino Guerrero. Despite of
cutting the relationship by the family, they still continued the affair. One day, one daughter of the
accused invited the victim in their house. They were talking at first when suddenly Pablo struck
Ernesto at the right side of the back of the head causing the victim to fall down face up. Dino got a
bolo hacked Ernesto in the neck below the jaw. Her later cut Ernesto’s Penis. Thereafter after Dino
left, Pablo beheaded the victim and Ana screamed “already dead”.

-the accused claimed Self-defense but not accepted because the aggression already ceases when the
victim fell in his body. It was not self-defense but rather revenge

-there is no Treachery in this case because of the frontal attack and started with heated arguments
among the parties involved.

-there was no PREMEDITATION. A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence which would
disclose the true criminal state of mind of the accused will only be construe as remark as feelings. In
fact the accused was plowing the field at the day of the crime and did not show the deliberate
planning of its commission.

-No Cruelty is to be appreciated where act of constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was
perpetrated when the victim was already dead. Cruelty augmented when the wrong by causing
another wrong not necessary for its commission.

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
People Vs. Ladjaalam

-the accused were convicted of Illegal possession of fire arms and multiple attempted homicide
FACTS: More than 30 policemen headed by Soledad proceeded to the house of appellant and his
wife at Rio. Before they could reach appellants house 3 persons sitting at the nearby store shouted
“raid, raid”. When the policemen were about 10 meters from the main gate of the house, they were
met by a rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the house. There was only gunfire at
the back of the house. Some of the team started to enter the house to search the vicinity, they
found 2 women and children sitting at the sala. They brought the civilian on the second floor, there
they found the accused which escaped from the window of his room. One of the police asked
assistance for the capture of the appellant. They found in the house “shabu” with aluminum foil and
unlicensed firearms.

-The accused was convicted of attempted homicide with aggravating circumstances of illegal
possession of the firearms.
-Since the accused used only the firearms in the commission of the crime multiple attempted
homicide, it can not be considered as separate crime. Amendments to PD 1866 contained specific
provision no other crime was committed. It will be prejudicial to accused to be convicted of two
separate crimes. Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.