G.R. No. 149368. April 14, 2004 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

FRANCISCO DACILLO AND JOSELITO PACOT y IBARRA Facts: Jovelyn Dagmil saw the victim, Rosemarie B. Tallada, enter the house of the accused Francisco Dacillo, where she was last seen alive. Moments later Jovelyn and several others heard a struggle that took place in the house but failed to report the same immediately to the police. Five days later the foul odor of the victims rotting body was emitted from the house of the accused to which they decided to call the police. Upon closer investigation, they found the body of the victim encased in a cement tomb in the home of the accused who was only arrested a year after the discovery of the body. He was found guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced to death due to the aggravating circumstance of recidivism for a previous conviction for the death of his former live-in partner. Joselito Pacot, who he claimed killed the victim, was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to identify him with certainty. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should have been appreciated by the court against the accused Ruling: In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the information and to attach certified true copies of the sentences previously meted out to the accused. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant. Hence the imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 177162 March 31, 2009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROBERTO PAJABERA y DOE, Appellant Facts: Appellant Roberto Pajabera won a bet against the victim, Majen Bolanos, as to the outcome of an ongoing cockfight in Camarines Sur. Appellant tried to collect the sum of money owed to him which Majen refused to pay. Thereafter Majen tried to attack appellant with a balisong who ran and tried to repel the attack. As they scuffled for control of the bladed instrument appellant claims to have accidentally stabbed Majen in the right shoulder and the other parts of the victims body in hi efforts to defend himself. The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, given the position of appellant and the victim during the struggle, the location of the stab wound incurred by the victim on his right shoulder negates appellants claim of the accidental stabbing. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against appellant in his killing of Majen Bolanos. Ruling: Appellants attack having been made in a swift and unexpected manner on the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who did not give the slightest provocation, treachery attended the killing. Perforce, appellants conviction for Murder stands. Since treachery qualified the killing to Murder and absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

G.R. No. 170136 January 18, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO, appellant. Facts: Herein appellant Robert Brodett was charged for the murder of Dr. April Duque, his live-in partner, whose body was found burning on the spillway of Laoac Alacala. The sole witness to the killing was Giobert, their five year old son, who testified in court that he saw his father hit his mother with a hammer and thereafter stab her. Appellant was found guilty and the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of sex, cruelty, and scoffing at the corpse, were considered to have attended the killing of the victim, thus the court sentenced him to death by lethal injection. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of sex, cruelty, and scoffing at the corpse should be considered to have attended the killing of Dr. April Duque Ruling: The court ruled that the killing of April was attended with treachery, because the injuries suffered by April clearly show that she did not have any chance to defend herself. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was also appreciated but is already absorbed in treachery. Furthermore the court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the victims corpse because it was burned and left on the spillway in order to conceal the crime. The Court however did not appreciate dwelling and disrespect on account of sex because appellant and April resided in the same house and appellant did not deliberately intend to insult or disrespect Aprils womanhood.

G.R. No. 170136 January 18, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO, appellant. Facts: Herein appellant Robert Brodett was charged for the murder of Dr. April Duque, his live-in partner, whose body was found burning on the spillway of Laoac Alacala. The sole witness to the killing was Giobert, their five year old son, who testified in court that he saw his father hit his mother with a hammer and thereafter stab her. Appellant was found guilty and the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of sex, cruelty, and scoffing at the corpse, were considered to have attended the killing of the victim, thus the court sentenced him to death by lethal injection. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of sex, cruelty, and scoffing at the corpse should be considered to have attended the killing of Dr. April Duque Ruling: The court ruled that the killing of April was attended with treachery, because the injuries suffered by April clearly show that she did not have any chance to defend herself. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was also appreciated but is already absorbed in treachery. Furthermore the court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the victims corpse because it was burned and left on the spillway in order to conceal the crime. The Court however did not appreciate dwelling and disrespect on account of sex because appellant and April resided in the same house and appellant did not deliberately intend to insult or disrespect Aprils womanhood.

G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN MENDOZA y SALVADOR, accused-appellant. Facts: According the testimonies of appellant Efren Salvador and his family, Anchito Nano began destroying their house and thereafter had hit appellants son, Ernie Mendoza, in the head which prompted appellant to take action and hack Anchito with a bolo in defense of his home, his family, and himself. He later surrendered to the police after the incident and thereafter trial ensued. Due to the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense and the lack of proof for the requisite of unlawful aggression, appellants plea of self-defense and defense of a relative cannot be appreciated. Appellant was found guilty and although the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in his favor it was offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Issue: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery Ruling: A qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime. A generic aggravating circumstance, on the other hand, does not affect the designation of the crime; it merely provides for the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period. Thus, while a generic aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance, a qualifying circumstance may not. 32 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. Thus, it cannot offset voluntary surrender.

G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN MENDOZA y SALVADOR, accused-appellant. Facts: According the testimonies of appellant Efren Salvador and his family, Anchito Nano began destroying their house and thereafter had hit appellants son, Ernie Mendoza, in the head which prompted appellant to take action and hack Anchito with a bolo in defense of his home, his family, and himself. He later surrendered to the police after the incident and thereafter trial ensued. Due to the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense and the lack of proof for the requisite of unlawful aggression, appellants plea of self-defense and defense of a relative cannot be appreciated. Appellant was found guilty and although the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in his favor it was offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Issue: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery Ruling: A qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime. A generic aggravating circumstance, on the other hand, does not affect the designation of the crime; it merely provides for the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period. Thus, while a generic aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance, a qualifying circumstance may not. 32 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. Thus, it cannot offset voluntary surrender.

the determination to commit a crime and the execution is insufficient for a full meditation on the consequences of the act. G.R. No. 177162 March 31, 2009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROBERTO PAJABERA y DOE, Appellant Facts: Appellant Roberto Pajabera won a bet against the victim, Majen Bolanos, as to the outcome of an ongoing cockfight in Camarines Sur. Appellant tried to collect the sum of money owed to him which Majen refused to pay. Thereafter Majen tried to attack appellant with a balisong who ran and tried to repel the attack. As they scuffled for control of the bladed instrument appellant claims to have accidentally stabbed Majen in the right shoulder and the other parts of the victims body in hi efforts to defend himself. The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, given the position of appellant and the victim during the struggle, the location of the stab wound incurred by the victim on his right shoulder negates appellants claim of the accidental stabbing. Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery should be appreciated against appellant in his killing of Majen Bolanos. Ruling: Appellants attack having been made in a swift and unexpected manner on the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who did not give the slightest provocation, treachery attended the killing. Perforce, appellants conviction for Murder stands. Since treachery qualified the killing to Murder and absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. GR.No. 173477 February 4, 2009 People vs. Franco de Guzman FACTS: On November 14, 2003 in the evening, the accused Franco de Guzman armed with a handgun and with a use of a motorcycle to facilitate the commission of the offense, shoot and hit Dr. Fidelito Manaois several times, inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds in the vital parts of his body causing his death. ISSUE: Whether or not there is evident premeditation HELD: Yes, the court ruled that evident premeditation and treachery is present. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution affording the helpless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In this case, the victim Dr. Fidelito Manaois was shot fourteen times resulting in numerous wounds in his body. The victim was attacked suddenly and unexpectedly. Thus, the manner of the commission of the crime was deliberately adopted when the assailants purposely stopped their motorcycle, turned around and followed the tricycle where the victim and the eyewitness rode. The assailants then attacked the victim and the eyewitness in a secluded area to ensure that no one could witness the crime or come to the victims aid. GR 178541 March 27, 2008 People vs. Zeta FACT: On or about the 28th day of October 1995 in Quezon City, Angelo Zeta and his wife Petronilla Zeta was found conspiring together, confederating with and helping one another, with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted and employed personal violence to Ramon Garcia by shooting the latter with a .45 caliber pistol hitting him on the different parts of his body which ultimately caused his death. The Regional Trial Court ruled that Ramons killing was attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nocturnity. On December 24, 2002, Petronilla filed a Notice of Appeal with the Regional Trial Court stating that there are no testimonial evidence presented before the lower court that could sufficiently served as justifiable basis to warrant the reversal of the appealed decision rendered insofar as Petronilla is concerned but then upon being informed of the health predicament of the undersigned counsel, Petronilla voluntarily decided to withdraw the appeal, the appeal is dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. HELD: No, the court held that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the following evidence are present: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b)an act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to his resolve; and (c) a sufficient interval of the time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning. In the case at bar, the third element of premeditation is lacking. The span of 30 minutes or half an hour from the time appellant shot Ramon could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed. The court held that the lapse of 30 minutes between