Buan, Princess L. Case #86 [G.R. No. 177356 November 20, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs.

JOHBERT AMODIA y BABA, MARIO MARINO y PATNON, and ROY LO-OC y PENDANG, accusedappellants. FACTS: The facts of the case happened on June 10, 2003 at about 3:00 a.m., Richard Avila Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant in Quezon City, went out of the restaurant to invite customers. He noticed the regular customers of their restaurant accused-appellants Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc wherein Lo-oc hold the shoulders of the victim while Marino and Amodia took turns in beating the victim. As a result of the beating, the victim fell on the ground where Roda immediately approached the victim and saw blood oozing out of the back of his head. One of the maulers was about to deliver another blow on the victim but Roda was able to stop him, thereafter the appellants then went inside the restaurant and drank one bottle of beer each. But, Roda did not immediately report the incident because he was threatened by accused-appellants. Later, in the early morning of the same day, there were already some barangay tanods and police officers investigating the incident. The victim, later identified as Jaime Bartina, was then brought to the Quezon City General Hospital and died at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon of June 10, 2003. Roda went to Camp Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge against them by denying involvement in the death of the victim and averred alibi as their defense. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals which in its decision affirmed the trial courts decision. ISSUE: Whether the killing was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength to constitute murder? HELD: No. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. In this case, although the victim was unquestionably outnumbered, it was not shown that accusedappellants deliberately applied their combined strength to weaken the defense of the victim and guarantee the execution of the crime. Notably, accused-appellants took turns in boxing the victim. When the victim fell, the prosecution witness was able to hold him, preventing accused-appellants from further hurting him. Then accused-appellants simply turned away. To be sure, had accused-appellants really intended to use their superior strength to kill the victim, they would have finished off the victim, and probably even the lone prosecution eyewitness.

To stress, qualifying circumstances must be proved as clearly as the crime itself. In order to appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not only is it necessary to evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists or opposing forces and the arms or objects employed by both sides, but it is further necessary to analyze the incidents and episodes constituting the total development of the event.

Buan, Princess L. Case #87 [G.R. No. 140267. June 29, 2004] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BEN AMBROCIO, BENIGNO AMBROCIO, SR., BENIGNO AMBROCIO, JR. *(At Large), JOSEPH ANDRADE, and CARLITO FRANCISCO (At Large), accused, BEN AMBROCIO, BENIGNO AMBROCIO, SR., and JOSEPH ANDRADE, appellants. FACTS: DIEGO MASANGYA testified that at around 1:30 p.m. of February 24, 1998, a certain Roger Domingo reported that he found coconut lumber which could have been felled without permit, in a construction site in Sitio Nasunog, Dalipdip, Altavas, Aklan. As barangay captain of Dalipdip, part of Masangyas duties was to issue permits to cut coco lumber. He investigated the report and instructed Elienito Gervacio, a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, to verify Domingos report and to wait for him at Sitio Nasunog. At around 2:00 p.m., Masangya recalled, he was accompanied by the victim, Roberto Sanchez, to Sitio Nasunog. There they saw the pile of coconut lumber beside the road near the construction site. He noticed that in the house under construction, there was a drinking spree going on amongst the five accused Carlito Francisco, Joseph Andrade, Benigno Ambrocio, and his sons Ben and Benny. They alighted from the motorcycle. Ben Ambrocio walked towards the two until Ben was six meters away from them with only the construction sites bamboo fence separating them. He heard Ben ask, What are you doing there, captain? He noticed that Ben and his companions were already drunk. He replied, Who are you to question me? I am the barangay captain here. Upon hearing this reply, the other four accused came down from the house, and all five jumped over the fence. With their bolos drawn, the five approached them. Sanchez suggested that they talk things over calmly, saying, We will just talk peacefully. Without warning, Ben suddenly hacked Sanchez at the back. Masangya testified that at that point, he shouted to the victim, Berto, you run away. He himself sped off, but Benigno Ambrocio, Francisco and Andrade pursued him. They failed to overtake him. Sanchez, however, was not so lucky. Before he could run away, he suffered another blow. This time Benny Ambrocio struck him at the back with his bolo. The victim fell. All the five accused then gathered around Sanchez and continued hacking him to death. Afterwards, they carried his body to the area where it was later found. Masangya added that he witnessed the entire incident while he hid behind a thicket. Soon thereafter, at around 4:00 p.m., he reported the incident to the Altavas police. There he saw Joseph Andrade who also reported the incident. Initially, Masangya only implicated the Ambrocios. He included Andrade and Francisco in a supplemental report made one day after the killing.

In their defense, appellants contended that they merely defended themselves from Masangya and Sanchezs unlawful aggression. According to appellant Ben, he hacked Roberto Sanchez in self-defense. The trial court disbelieved the defense, and found the prosecutions version credible.

ISSUE: Whether the appellants guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; and whether the killing of Roberto Sanchez was attended by conspiracy and treachery. HELD: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be appreciated even if there is no direct evidence to show an actual agreement to commit the crime, when the acts and attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime reflect a common design, thus making all the accused co-principals in the crime committed. The trial court based its finding that conspiracy existed on the appellants actions at the time of the commission of the crime which showed a unity of purpose amongst them. A division of labor among appellants and co-accused occurred: Ben and Benny took care of Sanchez, while the other three pursued Masangya. When all the accused carried the body of Sanchez from the road to the thicket, it showed their unity of purpose to end his life and hide his corpse. Thus, as co-conspirators, they must all be liable for the death caused even if not all may have dealt a fatal blow on the victim. As to the issue of conspiracy, it was established that when Masangya and Sanchez arrived at the scene of the crime, they had a heated argument or exchange of words with appellant Ben Ambrocio, who was holding a bolo. Ben was six meters away from Sanchez, the victim. Said heated exchange prompted the appellants and co-accused to jump over the fence. The victim Sanchez could not have missed the import of what was happening: the bolo held by the appellants and co-accused meant danger to his life. Nevertheless, where a killing is preceded by an argument or quarrel, treachery can no longer be appreciated, as the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants. But while we agree that treachery might not have attended the killing of Sanchez, we rule that there was abuse of superior strength that should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance on the part of appellants. Abuse of superior strength is present when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. But in this case, it has been shown that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure the advantage of their numerical strength and advantage. There is proof of the relative numerical strength of the aggressors and the assaulted, a ratio of 5 to 2. There is also proof that the aggressors simultaneously assaulted the deceased. When all five accused, armed with bolos, joined forces to attack and pursue Sanchez and Masangya, in a concerted effort, they definitely abused their superiority in number and in arms. Since this aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information and duly proved, it qualifies properly the killing to murder.

Buan, Princess L. Case #89 [G.R. No. 123298. November 27, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO alias Francis, appellant. FACTS: That on or about the 21st day of November, 1990, appellant Francisco Calpito armed with a deadly weapon, with intent to gain did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of violence and intimidation on the person of Florentina Villas rob, take and carry away a shoulder bag containing cash in the amount of P15,000 and jewelries amounting to P30,000 belonging to Florentina Villas. The prosecution presented its sole witness in the person of Israel Montilla, the grandson of the victim Florentina Villas. In his testimony,[9] he narrated that at around 2:00 a.m. of November 21, 1990, he was sleeping in the sala of the victims residence when he was awakened by the victims shout for help. He then rushed to the victims bedroom which was just 2 meters away from the sofa on which he slept. By the doorway, he met appellant who was holding a fan knife in his right hand and the victims shoulder bag in his left. He grappled with appellant, who suddenly stabbed him on his left upper arm. While Montilla searched for something with which he could defend himself, appellant rushed out of the house through the kitchen door, the lock of which the latter had destroyed. Montillalooked inside the bedroom and saw his grandmother on the bed lying in a pool of blood, with stab wounds all over her body. Montilla further declared that no other person was inside the bedroom when the incident happened. He was able to recognize appellant because of the fluorescent light. He testified that he could not be mistaken regarding the assailants identity, since he had long known appellant, who resided near the victims house. He also stated that appellant, in his haste, left a flashlight and a cap which had the latters name written on its inside portion. He added that he had known appellant to be a drug user, and that at the time of the incident, the latter appeared to be under the influence of drugs. ISSUE: Whether or not the abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder? HELD: Yes. A perusal of the facts of the case readily reveals that abuse of superior strength attended the crime. In several cases, this Court has ruled that this circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which the latter selected or took advantage of in the commission of the crime. In a recent case, it was held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes an abuse of the aggressors superior strength. The circumstance must apply with more reason in the present case, where the abuse of superior strength is evident from the notorious disparity between the relative strength of the victim, a 74-year-old unarmed woman, and the assailant, a young man armed with a knife.

Buan, Princess L. Case #88 [G.R. NO. 141942. October 13, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY PONCE JAMON, accused-appellant. FACTS: On July 9, 1998, at around 9 oclock in the morning, Pilar said she had a heated altercation with appellant. Pilar was bent on moving out of Victorias house. She said she wanted to transfer to their own house in Bagong Silang, Quezon City, to spare her daughters from the shame and hassle of the couples constant fights over appellants addiction to women, gambling, and booze. Appellant warned Pilar that once they moved out, she could never set foot in her daughters house again. He added in a threatening manner, with his eyes bulging (Nanlilisik ang mga mata), that if Pilar came back to Victorias house, he would beat her up. These threatening words were uttered within the earshot of Victoria, who was then cooking in the adjoining room. Chagrined, Victoria ordered her stepfather out of the house. She then gathered appellants clothes on the bed and yelled, Take all your clothes! Appellant got his pistol which was hidden inside the cut-out pages of a telephone directory on a nearby table and fired it in the air. Pilar and Victoriawere transfixed. Appellant pointed the revolver at Victoria and announced, I am going to shoot! Pilar embraced her daughter and was about to bring her out of the room when appellant fired, hitting Victoria at the chest and causing her to fall bloodied on the floor. Afterwards, appellant reloaded the gun and bellowed, Sige!, while pointing the muzzle of the gun at Pilar. But the gun jammed and did not fire. Appellant quickly fled the scene, leaving mother and daughter in an embrace, which turned out to be their last. In the hospital, Victoria was declared dead on arrival. However, when appellant presented, he declared that the shooting was unintentional. The court disbelieved appellants claim of accidental shooting where by convicting the appellant based on the evidence of the parties. Furthermore, the court concluded that abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. ISSUE: Whether or not the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength to qualify the crime as murder? HELD: Yes. The prosecution sufficiently proved the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. In the present case, the victim was a woman with a smaller build. She was unarmed. Appellant was a fifty-one-year-old male, in the prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. The killing indubitably constitutes an instance of abuse of superior strength, hence the offense is qualified to murder, and not merely homicide. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as alleged in the information, attended the fatal shooting of Victoria Tacla.

Buan, Princess L. Case #90 G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995 ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO,petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANNIE FERRER, accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, accused-appellants. FACTS: At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, jogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them "Gulpihin ninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw !" The loyalists replied "Bugbugin !" A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon !" A commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt. 2 He then saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being chased by a group of persons shouting "Iyan, habulin iyan. Cory iyan !" The man in the yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to extricate himself from the group but they again pounced on him and pummelled him with fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedo's aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a while and Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But accused Raul Billosos emerged from behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head. Accused Richard de los Santos also boxed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even as he was already fallen. Salcedo tried to stand but accused Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. Accused Nilo Pacadar punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan. Patayin!" Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim again. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly boxed him. 6 Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not notice what he did. Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the blood from his face. He sat on some cement steps and then tried to flee towards Roxas boulevard to the sanctuary of the Rizal Monument but accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life exclaiming "Maawa na kayo sa akin. Tulungan ninyo ako." He cried: "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?"

The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help of a traffic officer, brought Salcedo to the Medical Center Manila but he was refused admission. So they took him to the Philippine General Hospital where he died upon arrival. Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis. On December 16, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision finding Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to 14 years 10 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Annie Ferrer was likewise convicted as an accomplice. The court, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the other accused and thus acquitted Raul Billosos, Gerry Nery, Rolando Fernandez, Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega. On appeal, the Court of Appeals on December 28, 1992, modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide because the information against him did not allege the said qualifying circumstance. ISSUE: Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the accused of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, not death in tumultuous affray. HELD: A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was between one distinct group and one individual. Confusion may have occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists, but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa Street. It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists picked on one defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches, kicks and blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous by as much as fifty in number and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. They took advantage of their superior strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from the Chinese Garden to the Rizal Monument several meters away and hit him mercilessly even when he was already fallen on the ground. There was a time when Salcedo was able to get up, prop himself against the pavement and wipe off the blood from his face. But his attackers continued to pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend himself nor could he find means to defend himself. Sumilang tried to save him from his assailants but they continued beating him, hitting Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he finally lost consciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the killing to murder.