People of the Philippines vs.

Fransisco Larrañaga ; Josmen Aznar; Rowen Adlawan; Albert Cano;

Ariel Balansag; Davidson Valiente Rusia; James Anthony Uy; James Andrew Uy

(Feb. 03. 2004)

Facts:

1. On July 16, 1997, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueling Chong went missing.
2. Two days later, a body of a young woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff in Carcar, Cebu
which was later identified by Mrs. Chiong to be that of Marijoy Chong
3. Shortly a year after, the mystery that engulfed the disappearance of Marijoy and Jacqueline
was resolved when Rusia, bothered by his conscience, testified before the trial court how the
crimes were committed and identified all the appellants as the perpetrators.
4. Marijoy and Jacqueling Chong were standing at the waiting shed when Rowen and Josman
grabbed them and forced both girls to ride in the car. After a failed escape by Jacqueline,
Josman elbowed her and punched Marijoy, causing both girls to faint
5. The group brought Marijoy and Jacquline to the South Bus Terminal where they were able to
hire a white van driven by Alberto
6. Inside the van, Marijoy and Jacqueling were slowly gaining strength so James Anthony taped
their mouts and Rowen handcuffed them together
7. They proceeded to Tan-awan, Carcar, where they parked their vehicles near a precipice where
they drank and had a pot session
8. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out of the van and told her to dance as they encircled her while at
the same time all the accused take turns in raping Marijoy who was left inside the van.
9. After which, they brought Marijoy out of the van and upon Josman’s instruction, led her to the
cliff and mercilessly pushed her into the deep ravine.
10. As for Jacqueline, she was beaten until she passed out.
11. The group then headed back to Cebu City.

Informations charged against the accused:

(1) Criminal Case No. CBU-45303

a. Kidnapping and Illegal Detention of Marijoy Chong
(2) Criminal Case No. CBU-45304
a. Kidnapping and Illegal Detention of Jacqueline Chong

RTC: all the accused are guilty of TWO CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION

- **at the same time granting the prosecution’s motion discharging Rusia as an accused and
according him the status of a state witness

Hence, the instant separate appeals to SC.

Issue(s):

1. W/N there has been a violation of the appellants’ right to due process?
 2. W/N the prosecution has insufficient evidence of “conspiracy” among the accused?

RULING: Affirms RTC with Modification

A. Crim. Case No. CBU-45303. The accused are guilty of Special Complex Crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape (for the death of Marijoy Chong)
Sentence: Death by Lethal Injection
a. **Also, SC Modifies sentence of one of the accused, James Uy, who was a minor at the time it the
crime was committed. (Death Penalty  Reclusion Perpetua)
b.
B. Crim. Case no. CBU-45304. The accused are guilty of simple kidnapping and serious illegal
detention (For Jacqueline Chong) Sentence: Reclusion Perpetua

RATIO:

1. ON DUE PROCESS (Not relevant to Article VIII, but one of the main issues of the case)

Of the foregoing rights, the appellants claim as having trampled upon by the trial court are:

1. Right to Counsel
2. Right to Confront and Cross-Examine the Prosecution Witness
3. Right to Impartial Trial
4. Right to produce evidence (for the defense

The Court held:

1. W/N Right to Counsel was violated. No. Constitutional Guaranty of right to representation by
counsel does not mean that accused may avoid trial by neglecting or refusing to secure
assistance of counsel by refusing to participate in his trial. If the chosen counsel deliberately
makes himself scarce, the court is not precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel whom it
considers competent and independent to enable the trial to proceed until the counsel of choice
enters his appearance. The right of the accused to select his own counsel must be exercised in a
reasonable time and in a reasonable manner
2. W/N Right to Cross-Examination was violated. No. Appellants’ assertion has no factual and
legal anchorage. It is not true that they were not give sufficient opportunity to cross-examine
Rusia and other prosecution witnesses. The records reveal that all of appellants’ counsel de
parte had a fair share of time in grilling Rusia concerning his background to the kidnapping of
Marijoy. It appears therefore, that if some of the prosecution witnesses were not subjected to
cross-examination, it was because of the fact that their new counsel de parte refused to cross-
examine them.
 3. W/N right to impartial trial was violated. 1 No. Canon 14 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
states that a judge may properly intervene during trial to promote expeditious proceeding,
prevent unnecessary waste of time and dilly-dallying of counsel or clear up obscurities.
Records show that the intervention by way of comment of Judge Ocampo during the hearing
was not only appropriate but necessary. The court cannot fault Judge Ocampo for exhaustively
reminding appellants’ counsel of the parameters of alibi to ensure that there will be an orderly
and expeditious presentation of defense witnesses and that will be no time wasted by
dispensing with the testimonies of witnesses which are not relevant
4. W/N right to evidence was violated. No. Due process of law is not denied by the exclusion of
irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony of an incompetent witness. 2 It is
not error to refuse evidence which although admissible for certain purposes, is not admissible
for the purpose which counsel states as the ground for offering it.
ON CONSPIRACY (ART. VIII)

2. W/N the prosecution lacked evidence to prove conspiracy. No. From the evidence of the
prosecution, there is no doubt that all the appellants conspired in the commission of the
crimes charged. Their concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of
intent. Well settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to
commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which
the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when
such point to a joint design and community of interest. Otherwise stated, it may be
shown by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime. Exhibit A

Event Participant
1. Chiong Sisters were grabbed around Ayala Center Josman ; Rowen
and forced to ride in a white car
2. Riding a red car, serves as back-up in a convoy Larranaga; Uy brothers
headed to the safehouse in Guadalupe
3. Hired a white van bound for Tan-awan Alberto (Driver); Ariel (Conductor)
4. On their way, taped the mouth and handcuffed the James Anthony Uy and Rowen
Chong Sisters
5. Molestation and Rape of Chiong Sisters ALL
6 . Pushed Marijoy off the cliff Rowen and Ariel

Furthermore, The Court held that the arguments of Rowen, Ariel and Alberto that they
were not part of the “conspiracy” as they were merely present during the perpetration of the
crimes charged but not participants therein, is bereft of merit.

To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to

have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be

1 Apellants imputes bias and partiality to Judge Ocampo when he asked questions and made comments when the defense
witnesses were testifying
2 E.g. Exclusion of testimonies of 4 airline personnel which were intended to prove that Larranaga did not travel
to Cebu from Manila or From Cebu to Manila on July 15 and 16,1997 would not prove the legal requirement of “physical
impossibility” because he could have taken the flight from Manila to Cebu prior to that date.
 intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended. As shown by the evidence for the prosecution. (refer to
Exhibit A)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Garchitorena

Facts:
1. In the evening of Spetmber 22, 1995, at Brgy. Dela Paz, Binan, Laguna, Mauro Biay
was attacked by the accused-apellants, Arnold Garchitorena, Joey Pamplona and Jessie Garcia.
2. According to the principal witness of the prosecution, Jessie called Mauro to come, and
upon approaching, he twisted the hand of the victim behind his back an thereupon his
companions, Arnold and Joey began stabbing her brother Mauro repeatedly with a shiny bladed
instrument
3. The victim was struggling to free himself while being stabbed by the accused, until he
slumped facedown to the ground
4. This testimony was corroborated by the physician who conducted the post-mortem
report which specified (8) stab wounds suffered by the victim – (1) neck; (2) chest;(2) upper
abdomen; (1) below armpit; (1) at the back; (1) at the left thigh
5. Defense:
Arnold: admit stabbing the victim but due to mental disorder(schizophrenia)
Joey: Denial and Alibi (he denied participation but he saw Arnold stabbing the victim)
Jessie: Alibi (He was still riding a bus from work at Blumentritt at the time of the crime)

RTC: The accused are guilty of MURDER. (Sentence: Death Penalty)3

CA: Affirmed RTC in entirety4

Garcia in this automatic review argues that there was no conspiracy as “there was no evidence
whatsoever that he aided the other two accused-appellants or that he participated in their criminal
designs”

Issue: W/N there was conspiracy between the accused

Held:
Yes. Conspiracy was shown because accused-appellants were together in performing
the concerted acts in pursuit of their common objective. Garcia grabbed the victim’s hands and
twisted his arms; in turn, Pamplona, together with Garchitorena, strangled him and straddled him on
the ground, then stabbed him. All the means which the victims could escape were blocked by them

3Death Penalty is a ground for an automatic review in SC

4 Ratio:Evidence presented by the prosecution shows that the accused conspired to assault the victim. Jessie and
his co-accused Joey restrained Mauro and overpowered him. Conspiracy is apparent in the concerted action of the three
accused
until he fell to ground and expired. The three accused-appellants’ prior act of waiting for the victim
outside affirms the existence of conspiracy, for it speaks of a common design and purpose
“Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior
to, during or subsequent to the incident”

Where there is conspiracy, as here, evidence as to who among the accused rendered the
fatal blow is not necessary. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the intent and the
character of their participation, because the act of one is the act of all.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Vs. ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS

Supreme Court
Manila

G.R. 195196

Article 9:

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.

Petition: ESTANLY OCTA appeals the decision of CA to SC.

Facts of the crime:

(1) JOHHNY CORPUZ and MIKE ADRIAN was kidnapped on Sampaloc manila (sept 25, 2003)
(2) The kidnappers communicated with JOHHNY’s wife ANA MARIE to inform they have JOHHNY and
MIKE and to ask for MONEY worth 20 million. However, ANA MARIE can only come up with
538,000php
(3) ANA MARIE contacted PACER (police anticrime and emergency response) to help her.
(4) The kidnappers set upped the manner on how the ransom money would be deliver (ANA MARIE
should travel from Quaipo church to Quezon city circle then SM Fairview then Robinson Fairview
then she need to go to Red Lips Beer house and go to the nearby Caltex Auto Supply.) (September
30, 2003)
(5) There, ANA MARIE would see a man wearing a red cap and would ask her “saan yong padala ni
boss”
(6) Red cap wearing man, and the master mind of the kidnapping had argued over the phone
 (7) Master mind wants Ana Marie to give her the money directly instead.
(8) JOHNNY and MIKE were released by the kidnapper after the transaction (Oct 1, 2003).
Facts of the prosecution:

(1) ANA MARIE identified the man wearing a red cap as ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS
Hence, the case and the petition.
Case Progression:
(1) RTC finds ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS guilty of kidnapping for ransom.
a. Penalty
i. Reclusion perpetua
ii. 538, 000 actual damages
iii. 100, 000 moral damages
iv. 50, 000 exemplary damages
(2) CA affirms RTC
(3) SC affirms the decision of RTC and CA. However, there are modifications:
a. Modification: 100, 000 exemplary damages
Issue related to article 9: whether or not ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS is a co-conspirator of the kidnap for
ransom crime.

Ruling: Yes, he is a co-conspirator to the crime because his participation. His act of receiving the money
follows the common design or purpose of the kidnapping act. HENCE, he is a conspirator.

Furthermore, the hostages were not released until the ransom was secured. Hence, the criminal act was
still continuing while he receives the money. This proves the essentiality of his actions to the grand plan.

SUPREME COURT
G.R. Np. 196735 May 5,2014
People of the Philippines vs. Danillo, FELICIANO, JR., Julius Victor MEDALLA, Christopher SOLIVA,
Warren L. ZINGAPAN, AND Robert Michael Beltran ALVIR.
Created by: Marc Gabriel Abella

Petition: to review the decision of the Court of Appeals

Facts of the Crime:

(1)Seven members of SIGMA RHO fraternity, namely: (1) Leandro LACHICA, (2) Amel FORTES, (3)
Dennis VERTURINA, (4) Mervin NATALICIO, (5) Cristobal GASTON, (6) Felix TUMANENG, and (7)
Cesar MAGROBANG, were eating lunch at UP Diliman, Beach House Canteen. (December 8, 1994.
Lunch time)
(2) They were attacked by members of SCINTILLA JURIS which were masked and armed with led
pipes, baseball bats, and bladed weapons
(3)Sigma Rho members were attacked by waves of people 10 to 15 men with masks in multiple waves
 (4)The members of SIGMA RHO fraternity sustained physical injuries and of them died namely:
Dennis Venturina (RIP)
After the attack, the members of SIGMA RHO were separated. (SAME DAY Dec 8,1994)

The Gangster Portion The non-Gangster Portion

(1) Leandro LACHICHA went to College of (1) The harmed members, namely:
Law to meet other SIGMA RHO members NATALICIO and VERTURINA, was brought
which give him the information that to UP infirmary by bystanders
SCINTILLA JURIS is meeting up in the
(2) They were assisted by MANGROBANG and
library to go to Sm North
(3) GASTON went to hang out of the SIGMA
(2) LACHICHA gather SIGMA RHO members
RHO
to confront SCINTILLA JURIS in SM north
(4) FORTES ran away.
(3) They were attacked with stones and pill
boxes.
(4) They went back to UP to hold a meeting.

The night of Dec 8, 1994

(1) Sigma Rho members were advised to lodge their complaints to NBI (National Bureau of
Investigation)
(2) VERTURINA was transfer to ST. LUKES then he died on DECEMBER 10, 1994
Facts of the Prosecution:

(1) The other five members filed their affidavits on December 12, 1994.
(2) The affidavits were against several members of SCINTILLA JURIS namely: (1) Danilo FELICIANO,
Jr., (2) Julius Victor MEDALLA, (3) Warren, ZINGAPAN, (4) Robert Michael Beltran ALVIR, (5)
Christopher L. SOLIVA, (6) Reynaldo G. ABLANIDA, (7) Carlo Jolette FAJARDO, (8) George
MORANO, (8) Raymund E. NARAG, (9) Gilbert Merle MAGPANTAY, (10) Benedict GUERRERO, and
(11) Rodolfo PENALOSA Jr.
(3) RTC judges that the 5 guys are substantially identified and the other 6 guys are not. Hence, ALVIR,
FELICIANO, SOLIVA, MEDELLA, AND ZINGAPAN were found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of MUDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
(4) Furthermore, ABLANIDA, FAJARDO, MAGPANTAY, MORANO, and NARAG were acquitted because
they of lack of identification.
(5) CA affirms the decision of RTC (3:1) However, they modified it. The modification claims that the
accused were only guilty of attempted murder only against NATACIO and FORTES, and not against
MANGROBANG, LACHICHA, and GASTON. Hence, lowering the charges to slight physical injuries.
Issue Related to the Article 8: Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals erred in lowering the
said charges

Yes, these accused people are in a conspiracy. This implies that they have numbers and weapons
advantage. Furthermore, they premediated attack because of its swift nature. They all agreed to commit
the crime which aims to do the highest amount of damage possible to the victims. Some were able to run
away and take cover, but the others would fall prey at the hands of their attackers. Therefore, it is
immaterial to distinguish between the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims to determine the
respective liabilities of their attackers.

It is illogical to presume that despite the swiftness and suddenness of the attack m the attackers intended
to kill only 3 of them and just harm the other 3.

Hence, the Supreme Court affirms the decisions of CA with modifications.

Carandang vs. People

Facts:

April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 received a request for
assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take place in
her house at Calavite St., Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City. When the team reached the place, SPO1
Montecalvo's group went to the left side of the house, while SPO2 Red's group proceeded to the
right. The two groups eventually met at the back of the house near Milan's room. The door to Milan's
room was open, enabling the police officers to see Carandang, Milan and Chua inside. SPO2 Red
told the group that the persons inside the room would not put up a fight, making them confident that
nothing violent would erupt. However, when the group introduced themselves as police officers, Milan
immediately shut the door.
PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, causing it to fall and propelling them inside the
room. PO2 Alonzo shouted "Walang gagalaw!" Suddenly, gunshots rang, hitting PO2 Alonzo and
SPO2 Red who dropped to the floor one after the other. SPO1 Montecalvo, who was right behind
SPO2 Red, was still aiming his firearm at the assailants when Carandang shot and hit him. SPO1
Montecalvo fell to the ground. SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan, "Sugurin mo na!" Milan lunged
towards SPO1 Montecalvo, but the latter was able to fire his gun and hit Milan. SPO1 Estores went
inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out.

SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out of the house and
was also brought to a hospital, but Carandang and Chua remained holed up inside the house until it
was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when they surrendered.

RTC: On April 22, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision finding Carandang, Milan and Chua guilty
of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.

CA: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS

They appeal to the Supreme Court. Milan and Chua filed a Supplemental Appellant's Brief to further
discuss the Assignment of Errors:
1.) The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at
bar.

2.) Assuming arguendo that conspiracy exists, the court a quo gravely erred in convicting them of the
crime of murder and frustrated murder instead of homicide and frustrated homicide only, the
qualifying circumstance of treachery not having been duly proven to have attended the commission of
the crimes charged.

ISSUE:

(1) WON the court erred in its decision that there is a conspiracy in the commission of the crime

(2) WON Petitioners should only be liable to homicide and frustrated homicide

RULING:

(1) NO. The trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the
commission of the crimes charged. That the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their
actuations. Milan's act of closing the door may seem a trivial contribution in the furtherance of the
crime. On second look, however, that act actually facilitated the commission of the crime. The brief
moment during which the police officers were trying to open the door paved the way for the appellants
to take strategic positions which gave them a vantage point in staging their assault. On the other
hand, Chua’s participation in the conspiracy consisted of lending encouragement and moral
ascendancy to his co-conspirators as evidenced by the fact that he ordered Milan to attack the
already fallen police officers with the obvious intention to finish them off. Moreover, he did not
immediately surrender even when he had the opportunity to do so but instead chose to stay with
Carandang inside the room until their arrest.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the
conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of
concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and
objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of
the degree of participation of each.

(2) NO. Milan's act of closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime, allowing Carandang to
wait in ambush. The sudden gunshots when the police officers pushed the door open illustrate the
intention of appellants and Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers to defend
themselves. Treachery is thus present in the case at bar, as what is decisive for this qualifying
circumstance is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend
themselves or to retaliate.

People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Daodao et al.

Facts: Accused-Appellant, Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi,
was accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another, with intent to kill, by
means of treachery, armed with guns and bolos, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally
attack, assault and shot PIONIO YACAPIN, hitting his back and left leg, inflicting wounds that cause
his death thereafter. They pleaded not guilty.

Evidence of the Prosecutor:

Ronie Dacion, Edgar Dacion, two stepson of the victim Pionio Yacapin, and Nenita Yacapin, the
widow of the victim, all testifies that on Jully 11, 1993 at about 7:30 in the evening he saw accused
Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi and Alfemio Malogsi helping each other and with
the use of firearms and bolos, shot to death the victim, Pionio Yacapin in their house at barangay
Salucot, Bukidnon.

Bernandino Signawan, testified that Ronie and Edgar Dacion went to their house on the evening of
the crime and told that their stepfather was killed by the accused. The following morning, he and other
people in Ticalaan including the barangay captain, Ronie and Edgar Dacion returned to the house of
the victim and found the latter already dead and in the surrounding area of the house were recovered
empty shells of firearms.

Evidence of the Defense:

Police Inspector Vicente Armada, testified that he conducted an examination for paraffin test on all
four accused with the findings that they yielded negative results.

Eddie Malogsi, testified that he was at the farm of a certain Boyle together with his brother, Alfemio
Malogsi, being a worker of that farm. The latter also testified that he never owned a gerand rifle.

Antonio Sulindao, testified that he was at Salucot together with his family and at 7:30 in the evening,
he heard some gun shots. He further testified among others, that he has no grudge with the victim
prior to the incident.

Fernandez Saplina, testified that Marcelino Dadao was all the time at his house in San Fernandez,
Salucot, Bukidnon, and there was no occasion that said accused went outside or left his house on the
said date and time. Venancio Paydona, father-in-law of accused, also testified that accused Antonio
Sulindao that Dadao was in his house the whole day. Dadao himself testified that he had been
staying at the house of one Fernandez Saplina which is about 7 KM away from the house of the latter
until the following morning.

RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

CA: AFFIRMED with Modification of fines

Hence, appellant filed a petition. Stating that:

1.) The court a quo gravely erred in convicting appellants of the crime charged despite failure of
the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2.) The court a quo gravely erred in not considering the evidence of the defence
3.) The court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength when the same was not alleged in the information.
ISSUES:

1.) WON the court erred convicting the accused beyond reasonable doubt
2.) WON the court erred in not considering the evidence of the defense
3.) WON the court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
when the same was not alleged in the information
RULING:

a.) No. The pivotal issue raised by appellants in questioning the validity of their conviction for the
crime of murder the testimony of the two stepsons and the widow of the deceased victim are
credible enough to be worthy of belief.

Jurisprudence also tells us that where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the
prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the case at bar, no imputation of improper motive
on the part of the prosecution witnesses was ever made by appellants Ronie, Edgar and
Nenita positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the dastardly crime of murder
committed on the victim which they categorically and consistently claimed to have personally
witnessed. While the witnesses presented by the defense to corroborate the respective alibis
of Marcelino Dadao and Antonio Sulindao consisted of friends and relatives who are hardly the
disinterested witnesses that is required by jurisprudence.

b.) No. Only Eddie and Alfemio Malogsi held firearms which were used in the fatal shooting and
Marcelino Dadao and Antonio Sulindao purportedly held bolos. Nevertheless, the evidence on
record has established that all four accused shared a community of criminal design. By their
concerted action, it is evident that they conspired with one another to murder Pionio Yacapin
and should each suffer the same criminal liability attached to the aforementioned criminal act
regardless of who fired the weapon which delivered the fatal wounds that ended the life of the
victim.
 c.) NO. The lower court appreciated treachery, which was alleged in the information, as an
aggravating circumstance which qualified the offense to murder. This is proper considering
that, even if abuse of superior strength was properly alleged and proven in court, it cannot
serve to qualify or aggravate the felony at issue since it is jurisprudentially settled that when
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed
in the latter.

Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. Furthermore, we have also held that the essence of treachery is that the attack is
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In the case at bar, the
manner by which Pionio Yacapin was killed carried all the indubitable hallmarks of treachery.

SC: AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS