Case No and date: G.R. No. 203961.

July 29, 2015

Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Roderick Licayan, Roberto
Lara And Rogelio "Noel" Delos Reyes, Accused-Appellants.
Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Facts:
In an On-August 15, 2001 Decision, the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the RTC
Decision convicting Roderick Licayan and Roberto Lara of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom of Joseph Tomas Co and Linda Manaysay, and sentencing them to the penalty
of death. A Writ of Execution was issued ordering the execution of Licayan and Lara on
January 30, 2004 at 3:00 p.m.
Before the date of Licayan and Lara's scheduled execution, two of their co-accused
in the original Information were arrested. Pedro Mabansag, a double arm amputee and
suspected mastermind of the kidnapping, and Rogelio Delos Reyes.
The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed with the Supreme Court an Urgent Motion
to Reopen the Case which the SC granted on the condition that insofar as the accused
Lara and Licayan are concerned, the evidence already taken shall stand, although
additional evidence may be introduced to be taken and considered.
The prosecution evidence showed that the victim Joseph Tomas Co owns a
restaurant called Goodies Pares Mami House with branches in Valenzuela, Cubao, and
Sampaloc. Co's regular routine was for him and Linda Manaysay, the restaurant's cashier
and accounting officer, to make the rounds of the three branches for inspection and
collection of left-over food and cash sales.
On August 9, 1998, while Co was at the Sampaloc branch, supervising the loading
of left-over food into the back of his Tamaraw FX service vehicle, three men approached
him from behind. The men were armed with two caliber 45 pistols and a .38 revolver.
None of the men wore any mask. Co told the men that if they wanted money, they could
get it from the store. They refused. One of the men's guns went off. When Manaysay
heard the shot, she came out. Co and Manaysay were amde to board the Tamaraw and
their hands were tied and their eyes taped, and that they were made to wear caps over
their heads. They were brought inside a room of a house and the masking tape was
removed from their eyes. Accused Lara was left to guard them inside the room.
On August 11, 1998, at around 4:30 p.m., Licayan who was guarding them at that
time fell asleep and Co and Manaysay somehow managed to escape without being
noticed by the look-out outside their room. Complainants took refuge in a house from
which Co was able to call the Marikina Police Headquarters.
Lara and Licayan were thereafter identified by Co and Manaysay in a line-up.
Benjamin Co, complainant Joseph Tomas Co's brother, also testified that he was twice
called in his office by unidentified persons who demanded P10 million for the release of
complainants.
 In 2005, Mabansag died while detained at the Marikina City Jail. The trial against
Licayan, Lara and Delos Reyes proceeded. In 2009, the RTC of Marikina City rendered
its Decision finding Licayan, Lara and Delos Reyes guilty of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them each to
reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Licayan, Lara and Delos
Reyes in toto. In the appeal now before the Supreme Court, accused Delos Reyes
reiterates his defense that the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear was present
in his case while accused-appellants Licayan and Lara seek to overturn their conviction
on the basis of the newly discovered evidence presented during their retrial.

Issue/s:
Whether or not Delos Reyes is entitled to the exempting circumstance of compulsion due
to irresistible force.

Ruling:
The exempting circumstances under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal
Code refers to “Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force”
In People v. Dansal, this Court held that a person invoking the exempting
circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force admits in effect the commission of a
punishable act, and must therefore prove the exempting circumstance by clear and
convincing evidence. Specifically, he must show that the irresistible force reduced him to
a mere instrument that acted not only without will but also against his will. The compulsion
must be of such character as to leave the accused no opportunity to defend himself or to
escape.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending;
and it must be of such a nature as to induce a well--grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. A
speculative, fanciful or remote fear, even fear of future injury, is insufficient.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 181111. 2015-08-17
Parties: Jackson Padiernos Y Quejada, Jackie Roxas Y German And Rolando Mesina Y
Javate, Petitioners, Vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent.
Ponente: Brion, J.
Facts:
Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina were charged as accessories to the crime of illegal
possession of lumber, in violation of PD 705. Petitioners took away the truck that carried
the lumber to prevent its use as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture. The
information states:
That at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning on November 15, 2002, in Caragsacan,
Dingalan, Aurora, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforesaid
principals, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and
there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in their possession and control 818
pieces of lumber with a total volume of 10,253 board feet and valued at
P133,289.00 loaded on a ten-wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 and owned by
the accused Santiago Castillo y Cruz without any permit, license or documents
from the proper authority and that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon on the
following day, November 16, 2002, the aforesaid accessories, confederating
together and mutually helping one another, did then and there unlawfully,
feloniously and willfully take and carry away the aforementioned ten wheeler truck
with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it could not be used as evidence and avoid confiscation
and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or instrument of the crime,
[emphasis and italics supplied] CONTRARY TO LAW.
Petitioners plead not guilty as accessories to the crime.Prosecution’s evidence:
DENR officer approached a truck loaded with lumber in a national highway in Aurora.
Truck bore name of JEROME. The driver of the truck was FREDERICO, and the truck
helper was MOSTERA. Officers asked for supporting documents but failed to produce
any. Officers decided to transfer the truck and lumber to the police station. They
transferred the lumber first and left the truck at the highway. The truck was then seized
by the petitioners. The Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber gun.Defense: Mesina
testified that he was at home with his wife and children. Santiago asked him to bring the
truck but Mesina refused. However, Mesina finally agreed and rode in Santiago’s car and
they fetch Roxas. Roxas was resting in his house. They were on their way to the truck
when they saw Padiernos, and the latter hitched a ride. They also alighted from the car
and Santiago talked to the officers. Santiago handed the truck keys to Mesina. Mesina
took the driver’s seat, Padiernos sat in front with Santiago and Roxas. They alleged that
they didn’t reach the area where the Army was. They did not hear the commotion, and
also raised the defense that they did not intentionally take the truck.
RTC ruling: Petitioners were guilty. RTC did not entertain the defense that they did
not intentionally take the truck. RTC also disregard the petitioner’s claim that they did not
hear the warning shot.
 CA: Affirmed RTC but modified penalty. Also the subject truck as an “instrument”
in the commission of the crime, connected to the petitioners being accessories. The
violation was a mala prohibita, and the defense of not intentionally taking the car was not
entertained at all.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the petitioners are liable as accessories.

Ruling:
The petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime. The well-settled doctrine
is that the allegations in the Information determine the nature of the offense, and not the
technical name that the public prosecutor assigns in the preamble of the Information.
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, the accused is not concerned with
the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a
defense on the merits. His attention should be directed and his interest should be on the
facts alleged. The real question is not "did he commit a crime given in the law with some
technical and specific name," but "did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the
information in the manner therein set forth."
In the present case, the Information charges the petitioners of committing the
following acts:
xxx the aforesaid accessories, confederating together and mutually helping one another,
did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and willfully take and carry away the
aforementioned ten-wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it could not be used as
evidence and avoid confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or
instrument of the crime.
Applying the doctrine, the controlling charge against the petitioners is not the
allegation that they were accessories to the crime, which is merely the public prosecutor's
conclusion of law or the technical name of an accused's criminal participation under
Article 19 of the RPC, but the factual charges against them. In short, their alleged acts
control in defining the crime for which they should stand trial.
These material factual allegations pertain to their act of conspiring with each other
to take and carry away the subject truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to
avoid its confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or instrument of the
crime. Notably, the petitioners had been sufficiently apprised of these factual allegations,
against which they should defend themselves.
Reading the facts alleged in the Information and proved at the trial, in relation with
the legal definition of "accessories" under Article 19 of the RPC, we find that the RTC and
the CA erred in convicting the accused as accessories to the crime of violation of P.D.
705.
Article 19, paragraph 2 defines "accessories" as those who, with knowledge of the
commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the
body of the crime, its effects or instruments, in order to prevent its discovery.
Under this provision, the punished acts should have been committed for the
purpose of preventing the discovery of the crime.
In the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 - the illegal possession
of lumber - had already been discovered at the time the petitioners took the truck. This
discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber on November 15,
2002. The petitioners took the truck on November 16, 2002, after its confiscation.
In these lights, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime charged in
the Information as the legal definition of the technical term "accessories" does not
coincide with the factual allegations in the Information that serves as the actual criminal
charge against the petitioners.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 203313 | 2015-09-02
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Roberto Hidalgo, Don Juan
Hidalgo and Michael Bombasi Alias "Kabayan"(At Large), Accused, Roberto Hidalgo,
Accused-Appellant.
Ponente: Perez, J.
Facts:
On April 28, 2000, three sets of Information were filed against Roberto Hidalgo, his
sixteen-year-old son Don Juan Hidalgo, and Michael Bombasi alias “Kabayan” for three
counts of rape against thirteen-year-old AAA, a house help of accused Roberto.
In her testimony, AAA recalled that after putting Joshua (Roberto’s child) to sleep
at around 8:00 in the evening of January 30, 2000, she herself slept, however, she was
awakened when Roberto and Bombasi tied both of her hands at her back and had a
handkerchief tied in her mouth. The accused took turns in kissing, touching the victim’s
body and inserting their penis to AAA’s vagina. Due to threats to her life, it took almost
one month for AAA to file case and submit herself to medical examination.
Don Juan was arrested while Roberto allegedly surrendered to PNP Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group. Upon the other hand, Bombasi remains at large.
The RTC of Tacloban City found the accused guilty as charge. It found the victim’s
narration credible. It also found present the special aggravating circumstances of the
victim’s minority, conspiracy, use of force, superior strength, night time, and ignominy. It
also ruled that there was conspiracy among the accused in taking turns in having carnal
knowledge of the victim. On the other hand, a special mitigating circumstance of minority
was appreciated in favour of Don Juan.
On appeal, CA affirmed with the modifications the ruling of the trial court. It ruled
that there was conspiracy among the accused but disregarded the qualifying
circumstance that Roberto acted as AAA’s guardian in the absence of sufficient proof.
Also, the CA did not consider the other aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior
strength, night time and ignominy due to the fact that these were not alleged in three sets
of information filed against the accused. Only accused-appellant filed this appeal.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 are applicable to accused Don Juan
despite the fact that he is no longer minor at the time his conviction is promulgated
Ruling:
With the passage of Republic Act No. 9344 (R.A. No. 9344) known as "Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006" on 28 April 2006, the provision on retroactivity applies
insofar as it favors the persons guilty of a felony. This is despite the fact that the accused
is no longer a minor at the time his conviction is promulgated. The intent of R.A. No. 9344
is the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law even if he/she has already
exceeded the age limit of 21 years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she
was still a child. He/she shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration in accordance with R.A. No. 9344 in order that he/she is given the chance
to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. The age of the
child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction
is not material. What is important is that the offense was committed when the accused
was still of tender age.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 207949 | 2015-09-09
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Armando Dionaldo Y Ebron,
Renato Dionaldo Y Ebron, Mariano Gariguez, Jr. Y Ramos, And Rodolfo Larido Y Ebron,
Accused-Appellants.
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Facts:
On July 23, 2014, the Court rendered its Resolution in this case finding accused-
appellants Armando Dionaldoy Ebron, Renato Dionaldo y Ebron (Renato), Mariano
Gariguez, Jr. y Ramos, and Rodolfo Larido y Ebron (accused-appellants) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.
Accused-appellants collectively moved for reconsideration thereof, which the
Court denied with finality in its Resolution dated September 24, 2014. On even date, the
Court received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections dated September 16, 2014
informing them of the death of one of the accused-appellants in this case, Renato, on
June 1 0, 2014.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the criminal liability of Renato Dionaldo y Ebron is extinguished by his
death.

Ruling:
As Renato's death transpired before the promulgation of the Court's July 23, 2014
Resolution in this case, i.e., when his appeal before the Court was still pending resolution,
his criminal liability is totally extinguished in view of the provisions of Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code which states:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. -Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment;
xxxx
In People v. Amistoso, the Court explained that the death of the accused pending appeal
of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto.
Consequently, Renato's death on June 10, 2014 renders the Court's July 23, 2014
Resolution irrelevant and ineffectual as to him, and is therefore set aside. Accordingly,
the criminal case against Renato is dismissed.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 215319 | 2015-10-21
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Apolonio Babor @ "Julito",
Accused-Appellant.
Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J.
Facts:
On 25 January 2005, Marife and her husband (accused-appellant) went to her
parents' house in Sitio Mologpolog, Nalundan, Bindoy, Negros Oriental. At about 8:00
o'clock in the evening, accused-appellant asked permission from Marife Babor that he will
go to his father's house, to which the latter consented. After the accused-appellant left,
Marife went to sleep together with her parents and her six-year-old son. All of them slept
in one room. At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Marife was awakened by noise coming
from the door. So she lighted a kerosene lamp and it was then that she saw her husband
(accused-appellant) bringing a bolo. She approached him but then, the accused-appellant
stooped down and hacked her left foot. Immediately thereafter, accused-appellant hacked
her father, Bartolome Amahit, who was still asleep, hitting his head. Upon being hit,
Bartolome squatted and then fell down lying. While Bartolome was lying down, accused-
appellant continued hacking him, hitting Bartolome's face and arm after which the
accused-appellant left the house through the door. Marife knew that it was the accused-
appellant who hacked her father and inflicted a wound on her because the accused-
appellant was her husband and the place was illuminated by the kerosene lamp. Marife
and her mother shouted for help but nobody came. As Marife was already wounded and
her father already dead, she and her mother proceeded to Bindoy Hospital to have her
wounded foot treated.
Issue/s:
Whether or not there is the presence of treachery in the killing of Bartolome.

Ruling:
With respect to the presence of treachery in the killing of Bartolome, which is a
qualifying circumstance necessary for a murder conviction, paragraph 16 of Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines treachery as the direct employment of
means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly
appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.
In this case, accused-appellant killed the victim with a bolo at night time and while
he was sleeping. Clearly, he was not in a position to defend himself. Also, it is evident
that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately waited for the victim to sleep,
returned to the house late at night and armed himself with a bolo to ensure the success
of his atrocious act. Thus, we affirm the finding that treachery attended the killing of
Bartolome.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 199270 | 2015-10-21
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Vergel Ancajas And Allain*
Ancajas, Accused-Appellants.
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Facts:
AAA, nineteen (19) years old, is a household help of the spouses Constantino and
Elvira Cueva. At around 8 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1998, she asked permission
from her employers to go to her parents' house. AAA's house is located in Barangay
Taytayan, Bogo, Cebu, the same barangay where her employers' house is situated. On
her way to her parents' house, she met appellants Vergel and Allain who wanted to go
with her but she refused. They suddenly held her hands but she was able to get free from
their hold. She then decided to return to her employers' house but when she thought
about her parents' need for the money, she just stayed and waited at the side of the road
hoping that the appellants would go away.
Thinking that appellants had already left, she continued walking to her parents'
house but appellants reappeared and held her hands again. She shouted for help and
struggled to be freed from their hold but appellant Allain covered her mouth with a
handkerchief and appellant Vergel punched her in the stomach which caused her to lose
consciousness.
At about 1 o'clock in the morning of July 17, 1998, AAA regained her
consciousness and she noticed that she was only wearing her t-shirt as her bra, panty
and maong pants were on her side. She felt' pain all over her body. Her vagina hurt and
it was covered with blood. Her panty and maong pants were also stained with blood. She
went back to her employers' house and told them that she was raped by appellants.
At around 9 o'clock in the morning of the same day, AAA was accompanied by the
Spouses Cuevas to the police station in Bogo, Cebu to report the rape incident. The rape
incident was contained in a police blotter and AAA was later instructed to undergo a
physical examination which she did.
On March 28, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision convicted the accused. The
accused appealed to the CA. On April 27, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision affirming
the RTC decision.

Issue/s:
Whether or not there is a presence of conspiracy between the appellants in this case.

Ruling:
We find the presence of conspiracy in this case between the appellants. Under
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the
acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken
together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design, as the proof of
conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.
The prosecution had established that appellants held AAA's hands, and when she
tried to shout, appellant Allain covered her mouth with a handkerchief and appellant
Vergel punched her in the abdomen which caused her to lose consciousness. It is
fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective which were present in this case.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 197925 | 2015-11-09
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Edwin Dalawis Y Hidalgo,
Accused-Appellant.
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Facts:
An asset of PO2 Christian Boy Garcia Aranza arrived at the police station with
information that shabu could be purchased from a certain Edwin Dalawis of Barangay
(Brgy.) Sta. Clara, Batangas City. Acting on said information, Aranza, together with other
policemen, formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. Aranza marked a P500 bill
with his initials "CGA" to be used as the marked money for the operation. At Brgy. Sta.
Clara, Aranza frisked the asset to ensure that he did not have anything illegal in his
possession, gave him the marked money, and told him to walk towards the place where
he would meet the appellant, a Shell Gasoline Station. Aside from appellant who was
already thereat, they also saw the notorious drug pusher named Robert Lagmay
operating under the alias "Tagpi" coming out from Villa Anita. Thereafter, at a distance of
more or less seven (7) meters, the policemen saw the asset hand the marked money to
appellant who, in turn, handed a small transparent plastic sachet they suspected to
contain shabu. Their asset, then, signalled to the policemen the consummation of the
transaction by scratching his head. Upon seeing the signal, they immediately alighted
from the van to apprehend the appellant. PO2 Aranza confiscated the marked money
from appellant's right hand, while his asset turned over to him the plastic sachet. At the
same time, PO2 De Chavez was also able to confiscate a sachet filled with what they
suspected was shabu from the notorious drug pusher, Lagmay That the accused has
been previously convicted by final judgment under two (2) cases for violation of RA 6425.
The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with
recommendation of no parole for habitual delinquency and to pay a fine. Appellant
appealed his conviction arguing that among others, he could not be adjudged as a
habitual delinquent because he was charged not of any of the crimes enumerated by law
for which one could be considered as such, but of violation of the drugs law.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is a habitual delinquent.

Ruling:
As to the trial court's finding of habitual delinquency, the Court is in agreement with
appellant, the CA, as well as the prosecution that the trial court erred in withholding the
benefit of parole from appellant on the ground of habitual delinquency in spite of the
express mandate of Article 62 of the RPC, viz.:
 Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the
penalty in conformity with the following rules:
xxxx
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law
for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed
upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent,
is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
It is clear, therefore, that habitual delinquency is considered only with respect to
the crimes specified in the aforequoted Article. In the instant case, appellant was charged
with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the same crime adjudged in his two (2) prior
convictions, and not of crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto,
estafa or falsification, as required by the RPC. Hence, the law on habitual delinquency is
simply inapplicable to appellant.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 203087 | 2015-11-23
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Edgardo Zabala Y Balada And
Romeo Albius Jr. Y Bautista, Accused-Appellants
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Facts:
At 8 o'clock in the evening of December 12, 2003, the victim, Joseph Agapay
(Joseph), Cesar Lopez (Cesar), Emmanuel Rumbawa (Emmanuel), Roland Albius
(Roland) and Aldrin Zabala (Aldrin) were exchanging stories at the house of their friend,
Catherine Perez, located in Barangay Site, Mangcamagong, Basud, Camarines Norte. At
9 o'clock in the evening, Joseph told his friends that he was going home, and the latter
offered to accompany him on his way home. Joseph declined but his friends still decided
to follow him after five minutes. While Joseph was walking along the road, appellants
Romeo and Edgardo suddenly appeared and followed Joseph from behind. When
Joseph's friends were about 15 to 20 meters away from him, the group heard the latter's
outcry and saw appellant Romeo place his left hand on Joseph's shoulder and instantly
box the latter, while appellant Edgardo held Joseph's hands from behind. Joseph
struggled to free himself from appellant Edgardo's hold until they fell down the nearby
creek. Despite Joseph's plea, appellant Edgardo continued throwing fist at Joseph and
ordered him to shut up.
Appellant Romeo, who was then standing beside the creek, saw Joseph's friends
looking and approached them and told them to just go home and not to get involved,
hence, the group then all ran away from the crime scene. However, Aldrin and Roland
immediately returned to the crime scene and saw appellants mauling Joseph who then
fell to the ground unconscious. Appellant Edgardo then smashed Joseph's head with a
stone. Aldrin and his friends reported the incident to the police the following day and
executed their respective sworn affidavits.
Issue/s:
Whether or not there is a presence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants.
Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the crime.

Ruling:
We agree that conspiracy between appellants was established in this case.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony. Proof of the actual agreement
to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or inferred
from their acts. It was convincingly shown that both appellants had acted in concert to
achieve a common purpose of assaulting and killing Joseph. Appellants were together
when they followed Joseph walking along the road; appellant Romeo held Joseph by his
shoulder and boxed him while appellant Edgardo held Joseph's hands from behind.
Appellant Romeo told Joseph's friends who saw what was happening to go home and not
to be involved; appellants continued mauling Joseph and when he fell to the ground
unconscious, appellant Edgardo smashed his face with a stone. Appellants walked away
together from the crime scene as soon as they had achieved their common purpose.
We also find that treachery attended the commission of the crime. 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 to himself arising from the defense that the offended
party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the
employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and
consciously adopted.
Case No and date: G.R. No. 210616 | 2015-11-25
Parties: People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eddie Salibad Y Dilo, Accused-
Appellant.
Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J.
Facts:
On June 1, 2008, at about 2:00 in the afternoon, Manuel Binwag (Manuel) and
Diego Aclibon (Diego) went to the 1030 level of the mine site of Lepanto Mining Company
at Paco, Mankayan, Benguet and asked permission from Raymundo Dacuyan
(Raymundo), the security guard of the place, to allow them to dig scrap iron near the river.
Raymundo allowed them to dig but only until 3:00 in the afternoon. They collected scrap
iron until Raymundo ordered them to stop at about 3:30 in the afternoon. After talking to
them, Raymundo turned around to go back to his post. At that moment, appellant Eddie
Salibad [accused-appellant] suddenly appeared in front of Raymundo and
instantaneously shot him hitting him in the middle right portion of his abdomen. Raymundo
was able to prevent a second shot from being fired at him but fell to the ground in that
instant. The second shot hit the wall. Manuel and Diego ran away after they saw
Raymundo fall down. While running, they heard another gunshot. Manuel and Diego were
only about thirty (30) feet x x x from where the shooting incident occurred.
Acting on a text message forwarded by the Chief of Police of Mankayan Police
Station that a man with a gun was running down the UCCP Compound, Aurora St.,
Mankayan, Benguet, two (2) teams were immediately formed and dispatched by SPO3
Oliver Paleng (SPO3 Paleng) in response to the said report. Before the teams could leave
the police station, a certain Myrick Campos (Myrick) arrived and informed them that his
brother-in-law stole his gun from him. Together with Myrick, the team of PO1 Robert
Velasco (PO1 Velasco) reached San Roque, Paco, Mankayan, Benguet at about 4:00 in
the afternoon and waited for the person described in the message. At about 4:45, the
team saw a person with an object bulging on his waist walking towards them. The said
person - who turned out to be [accused appellant] - was identified by Myrick as his brother-
in-law who took his gun. The police officers then frisked appellant and found the gun on
his waist, with two (2) live ammunitions in the magazine and one (1) empty shell in his
pants pocket. [Accused-appellant] was brought to the police station and the confiscated
gun, ammunitions and empty shells were marked and brought to the crime laboratory for
examination. It was subsequently confirmed that [accused-appellant] was not a licensed
or registered firearm holder.
Meanwhile, the lifeless body of Raymundo was brought to the Lepanto Chapel
where an autopsy was conducted on June 3, 2008 by Dr. Jaime Rodrigo Leal (Dr. Leal)
of the PNP Crime Laboratory upon the request of the Mankayan Police Station. Dr. Leal
found that Raymundo sustained one gunshot [wound] at the right upper quadrant of the
abdomen; that the bullet penetrated the abdomen but did not make an exit; and that the
bullet was recovered at the level of the tenth thoracic vertebra. It was concluded that the
cause of Raymundo's death was bleeding secondary to the gunshot injury.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the commission of the crime is attended by treachery.

Ruling:
As for the qualifying circumstance of treachery, paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or
forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
The RTC and CA correctly ruled that the eyewitnesses were able to establish
treachery on the basis of Manuel and Diego's testimony that accused-appellant shot the
victim immediately after arriving as the latter turned around after talking to the witnesses.
The Court has ruled that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack,
without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. In People v. Perez, it
was explained that a frontal attack, such as the shooting in this case, does not necessarily
rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was
so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her
defense. The sudden appearance of accused-appellant while Raymundo was
preoccupied talking to Manuel and Diego and the use of a firearm resulted in a situation
where the attack caught the victim by surprise depriving him of the chance to put up any
defense before the fatal shot was fired. While he was able to parry a second shot, the first
shot fired by appellant has already inflicted a fatal wound in the victim's body. Thus,
treachery was correctly appreciated in this case.