UNINHABITED PLACE (case no.

2)
PEOPLE v DAMASO 86 SCRA 370
NATURE: Automatic review.
PROSECUTION’S CASE: Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la Cruz heard the barkings of dogs
outside their house. 2 men armed with guns, entered, pointed their weapons at them and asked
Donata for the wereabouts of her daughter Catalina. Donata was ordered to open an "aparador" from
which the two men took valuables.
They could hear the movements and voices of 3-4 other persons beneath the house. The 2
men brought Catalina down from the house and then asked where they could find Susana
.Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening the door to Susana's store. After several minutes, feeling
that the intruders had left, Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked him to go to the store to
see if her daughters were there. Donata sent Victoriano to the barrio lieutenant to report the
incident.The following morning the two women were found already dead with wounds in several parts
of their bodies. They were found in a sugar plantation 100 meters from Donata's house. The deaths
were caused by profuse hemorrhage due to a fatal, big, wide, gaping and deep lacerated wound.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Damaso stated that he was with his co-accused
Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo on the night the Sabado sisters were killed; that he never went
into the house of Donata Rebolledo as Eugenio and Gregorio were the ones who did; that it was
Gregorio and Eugenio who actually did the killing while he, Alviar and Espejo merely stood by; that
the victims were stabbed and their throats cut with a reaping knife (pangapas or lait); that the killing
was motivated by the failure of the older woman (Catalina) to pay for a carabao bought from
Gregorio; and that on that evening, Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo were carrying caliber .45
pistols while he was unarmed.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of armed
band, treachery and uninhabited place.
Anent the circumstances of uninhabited place, counsel disclaims its existence by pointing to the
proximity of the sugarcane field where the victims were killed to the national highway as well as to
certain houses in the barrio. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the
nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done during
nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and
passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any assistance. That the
accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought
the victims to the sugarcane field although they could have disposed of them right in the house of
Donata Rebolledo where they were found. Thus, in People v. Saguing, the Court considered the
crime as having been committed in an uninhabited place because the killing was done in a secluded
place at the foot of a hill, forested, and uninhabited.
The trial court considered separately the three circumstances of armed band, treachery and
uninhabited place where under other situations one may be considered absorbed or inherent in the
other. There is ample justification for this. The elements of each circumstance subsist independently
and can be distinctly perceived thereby revealing a greater degree of perversity on the part of the
accused.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby affirm in toto the decision
of the trial court in the two cases.
 DWELLING (case no. 1)
PEOPLE v ALMOGUERA 415 SCRA 647
NATURE: Automatic review. The crime involved is despicable because innocent lives of 3
young children were callously taken. This gruesome incident shocked the quiet barangay of Pia, San
Jacinto,Masbate.

PROSECUTION’S CASE: Florentino and Lily Julaton went to the polling precinct to cast their votes
in the barangay elections. Before leaving, they instructed their 3 children, Gina, 14 years old, Lyn, 8
years old and Rey, 7 years old, to watch their store and prevent strangers from entering their
house.Jessie Genova, Jr was about 30 meters away from the Julatons house,when he heard
Dante Aton shouting and inviting him to smoke cigarettes. As he was approaching the house, he
noticed thatAton was hiding his right hand behind the door while his left hand was holding a
cigarette. Near the door were the bodies of 2 dead children, Gina and Rey. When Aton uttered here
he comes,Almoguerra immediately went down the stairs holding assorted coins at his right hand and
a bladed knife then forced Genova, Jr to accept the loose coins. Frightened, he received the coins,
placed them inside his pocket and ran away. At the moment, he heard them shouting if you tell
somebody, we will kill you and your family. He and his fatherGenova, Sr., accompanied
the Julatons in bringing the dead tothe Hospital.Upon their return to barangay Pia, he gave the loose
coins amounting to P30.75 to his father and told him about the incident.Meanwhile, upon being
informed of the incident by Sonny Amor, spouses Julaton immediately returned home.Along the way,
they saw Almoguerra on the upper part of the hill near their house.Arriving there, they found all their
children dead. They also found that their wooden chest or baul was forcibly opened and that their
cash of P15, 000.00 and some loose change were missing.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: Josefina went to the polling precinct to cast her .Her
husband, Bienvenido, and her children, Charlie, Jerry, Darwin, andRodelyn, were still asleep. After
casting her vote she heard that Florentino Julatons children were killed.She then proceeded to their
residence .She saw the dead bodies. After informing her family and children about the incident, her
husband and their son, Charlie, went to the Julatons house where they stayed for 30 minutes
because the latter had a fevercaused by a boil. On July 4, 1994, he was arrested and detained. He
admitted that while he was in detention at the Matiporon provincial jail, he escaped with a
certain Donggoy and thereafter committed another crime of robbery.
HELD: The circumstance of killing was aggravated by treachery and dwelling. Dwelling is present in
this case as aggravating circumstance because robbery could not be committed without the
necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.The aggravating circumstances of treachery and
dwelling have been alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution by strong and
convincing evidenceThe aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants’ deliberate
intrusion in the privacy of the Julatons domicile shows perversity.In People vs. Feliciano, dwelling is
considered aggravating in robbery with homicide because this kind of robbery cannot be committed
without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the house.
 DWELLING (case no. 5)
DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX
PEOPLE v DALANON 237 SCRA 607
PROSECUTION’S CASE: OLIVER Cervantes testified he saw Sgt. Hermes Dalanon,
SalvadorAlbao, Godelio Monsales armed with long guns. Albao ordered Cervantes at gun point to lie
face down. Rodrigo asked Dalanon if they had committed any wrong but Albao replied with a
kick. Albao sought Felicidad and her 2 daughters, Rebecca and Sheila.Albao demanded money from
Felicidad but in vain. Albao was infuriated. He struck Felicidad on the head with a bolo.Dalanon
started to sexually molest Rebecca.Disappointed that the Rejusos had no money, Albao brought
Rodrigo downstairs. Cervantes heard Rodrigo's painful moan. Upon the instigation of Dalanon,
Felicidad was also taken downstairs by Monsales. Cervantes then heard "chopping sounds." It was
the turn of Cervantes to be brought down. He saw Rodrigo and Felicidad Rejuso sprawled dead.
Sensing that Albao and Monsales were some 2meters away from him, he ran away. They pursued
him and fired at him. He hid among the tall grasses. His pursuers missed him in the darkness of the
evening.He waited until 2 AM and rushed to the house of Bonifacio Cañares. Bonifacio and
Cervantes went to the house of the Barangay Captain Cornelio Carles. Then they went to the Police
station.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: DALANON alleged that he along with Godelio
Monsales, and Nicolas Cervantes escorted Engr. Jaime Bravo, Mrs. Bella Dalanon Panes Bravo, and
Benjie to Rancho Bravo in Asid. They arrived there in the evening. They party then left at 2 AM for
Bacolod. They sent-off the Bravo family to the Masbate Airport .Exhausted by the trip, he returned to
the bunkhouse to rest. He was surprised when he was implicated in the killings of the Rejuso family.
More so, when he was made to join the police line-up.
HELD: We affirm the conviction of Dalanon. Aggravating circumstances that attended the
commission of the crime:Dwelling or moradawas present because the principal crime took place in

the house of the victims, although the killings were committed outside thereof. The accused showed
greater perversity in their deliberate invasion of the tranquility of the Rejuso's domicile. The Crime
Scene Sketch also revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of Rebecca.
It was also committed with the aggravating circumstances of rape, dwelling, band,
treachery and craft. Rape was established. Prior to Cervantes' escape, he saw accused-appellant
fondling the breast of Rebecca. The Physical and Medical Examination Report of Rebecca showed
that there was a fresh deep and incomplete laceration of the hymen corresponding to a 6:00 o'clock
position. It concluded that there was penetration of her private organ. The Crime Scene Sketch also
revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of Rebecca.
 NIGHTTIME (case no. 3)
PEOPLE v AVENDANO396 SCRA 309
FACTS: JEFFRE CASTILLO, 8, son of the victim Remedios and brother of the victim Melvin stated
that he saw appellant in their house, looking for his plow. After dinner, he, his mother and brother
went to sleep, they had an overnight lamp which was turned on. He was suddenly awakened when
he heard a commotion. He heard his mother shout, "Dikong, tulungan mo kami." When he heard
the kalambugan he immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows and tried to hide.He
saw through his blanket that the person had come up: "Naaninag ko po sa kumot yung tao. That was
when he distinctly heard his Kuya Melvin say, "Kuya Willie, tama, na, tama na!" That was just before
Melvin was killed.Jeffre recalled that he recognized the cough of his Kuya Willie. He recognized it
because appellant frequented their house. Jeffre fell asleep and was awakened by persistent
knocking on their door. He opened the door to find his Ate Annie, Ate Norma and Ate Ann looking for
his mother. He then told his Ate Annie that Willerie Avendaño killed both his mother Remedios and
his Kuya Melvin.
HELD: The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and
unlawful entry. Of the three, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information.
As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by
the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring
the offender's immunity from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that
the appellant deliberately sought the cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the killing was
committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself.Aggravating circumstances must be
established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must
be resolved in favor of appellant.
WILLERIE AVENDAÑO is found GUILTY of two counts of homicide.

PRICE, PROMISE OR REWARD (case no. 4)

MEANS OF COMMISSION
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
PEOPLE v SUMAOY G.R. No. 105961
FACTS: Patricio Jacobe, Jr. testified that he saw the deceased Zandro Vargas talking toPacifico
Sumaoy. 3 other men were with them.He was startled by the sound of a gunshot. He saw Vargas run
but he was overtaken and dragged towards a waiting tricycle. Sumaoy and 3 other men then boarded
the tricycle taking Vargas with them. Jacobe allegedly heard one of accused-appellant's companion
say that they were taking Zandro to the hospital. Later that evening Jacobe learned that Zandro was
found dead in a kangkong field.
Accused-appellant denies participation in the killing of Zandro Vargas. He claims that the
whole day of July 9, 1988 he was on duty as an enlisted personnel of the 1103rd Criminal
Investigation Service (CIS) in Tagum, Davao. Sumaoy identified a document signed by Technical
Sergeant Ricardo Go called "Duty Detail" showing that accused-appellant was on duty from 8:00 a.m.
of July 9, 1988 to 8:00 a.m. of July 10, 1988. Ricardo Go, Technical Sergeant, Philippine
Constabulary, corroborated the accused-appellant's alibi.
HELD: Sumaoy defense of alibi is of no moment. Not only was accused-appellant positively
identified as the person who had shot and taken Vargas to an undisclosed placed. It is also settled
that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused prove that he was somewhere else when the
crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he could not have been physically present at the
place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
official position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance requires that the accused, as a
public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for the purpose of committing the crime.
If the

accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of
public position. In the case before us, no evidence was adduced to show that the killing of Zandro
Vargas was in any way facilitated by the accused-appellant's public position. It was not even shown
whether the accused-appellant wore his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the
crime.
Pacifico Sumaoy is guilty of homicide.
 DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX (case no. 6)
PEOPLE v PARAISO 319 SCRA 422

Facts: Roland Paraiso was found guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. Confederating with John Doe he entered the house of
Lolita Alipio Tigley, and stole several items and on the occasion thereof, with intent to kill, dragged
Tigley inside a room, and thereafter assaulted, attacked and stabbed the latter on the different parts
of the body which caused her death shortly thereafter.
Issues:
1. WON Paraiso was guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Yes. The
essential elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) are:
(1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2)
the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and, (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of
homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. The evidence for the
prosecution showed that appellant and his companion, with a gun and a knife, took possession of
personal properties belonging to the victim, with intent to gain, and on the occasion thereof, the
victim was killed.
2. WON aggravating circumstances were rightly appreciated. No. Dwelling and abuse of
superior strength may be appreciated but not disregard of respect due the offended party on
account of her sex.
Dwelling. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.
Here, robbery was committed in the house of the victim without provocation on her part. In
robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this
class of

robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of
privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him
wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.
Abuse of superior strength. While abuse of superior strength may be considered when there
is an inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor, there must,
nonetheless, be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the latter in the
commission of the crime. What should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage
of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Abuse of strength is present not
only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which
is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. Here, the victim was totally
helpless in the face of two (2) perpetrators who were armed with a gun and a knife.
Disregard of respect due to sex. However, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the
respect due to the victim by reason of her sex cannot be appreciated. This aggravating
 circumstance can be considered only in crimes against persons and honor. The special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide is a crime against property not against persons. Moreover,
nothing appears in the record that appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or
sex of the offended party. Moreover, such an aggravating circumstance would be absorbed by
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE (case no. 7)

PEOPLE v MANDOLADO 123 SCRA 133
FACTS: Julian Ortillano and Martin Mandolado, appellants, as well as Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon,
were on a bus bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato. All 4 were trainees/draftees of AFP. They alighted at the bus
terminal in Midsayap. Being all in uniform, armed & belonging to the same military outfit, they got acquainted &
decided to drink ESQ rum, at the said bus terminal. After drinking for about an hour, Mandolado got drunk and went
inside the public market. Subsequently, he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing. His
companions tried to dissuade him but he nonetheless continued firing his gun. Sensing trouble, Conrado and
Anacleto ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. Appellants followed
and boarded also the vehicle and forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to bring them to the Midsayap crossing. All the
while, Mandolado was harassing the driver and firing his gun. They got off at the Midsayap crossing and waited for
a ride. When Herminigildo Tenorio, driving a privately owned jeep where Nolasco Mendoza was on board, passed
by the 4 boarded the jeep. The whole time, Mandolado was still causing trouble and firing his gun. Upon learning
that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato, appellant Mandolado got angry, "cocked"
his gun and ordered the driver to stop. While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Conrado and Anacleto
immediately jumped off the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp. Appellants also got off the jeep but then
Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit the occupants of the jeep. Appellant Ortillano likewise,
fired his armalite, not at the occupants of said jeep but downwards hitting the ground. Then they ran away from
the scene and boarded another vehicle and went in so many places until they were apprehended. Mandolado was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength while Ortillano was penalized by imprisonment for being an accessory
Issue: WON the abuse of superior strength may be appreciated. NO. Although the SC appreciated the
presence of treachery, it did not appreciate aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and the use of
superior strength. While it may be true that a soldier in the AFP is deemed as one who holds public position, there
is no persuasive showing that herein appellants being draftees of the Army, in full military uniform and carrying
their high-powered firearms, facilitated the commission of the crimes they were charged. It may be conceded that
as draftees, the accused could easily hitch hike with private vehicles, as in the case of the deceased Tenorio's
owner-

type jeep, but there is no evidence that when they stopped the jeep the accused already intended to shoot the
occupants of the vehicle.
People v. Pantoja: There is nothing to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in
the Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army
rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes ...
There could be no abuse of confidence as evidence on record showed lack of confidence by the victims
to the appellants, that this confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated commission of
crimes. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a relation of
trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused
made use of such a relationship to commit the crime." It is also essential that the confidence between the parties
must be immediate and personal such as would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to
commit the crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence
 In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which
confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. Consequently, no
confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.
Similarly, there could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the simple
reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the breach thereof as
contemplated under Art. 14(4) RPC are manifestly lacking or non-existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army men
in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at
machine gun point which certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation.
Held: Mandolado is guilty of murder qualified by treachery while Ortillano is convicted as an accomplice to the
crime of murder

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (case no. 8)

PEOPLE v BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31
FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias "Bunso" were serving sentence in
the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the
Penal Colony. On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They
brought Julie up to the mountains.
 During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk
which was located under a Tamarind tree.
 Feb. 28, 1996 – Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands
& there she asked for help from Nicodemus
 Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was
preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso
warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed.
 Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He
averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left
him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring
Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accused-appellant was
afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.

Issues: WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated.
 To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of
the ff. requisites
a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime;
b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and

c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
 Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself
 It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to
commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.
 The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the
felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law doesn’t prescribe a time frame that
must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he
commits it.
 Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under
a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear
evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their
 clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. – Insufficient evidence for evident
premeditation.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (case no. 9)

PEOPLE v APOSAGA 414 SCRA 69
FACTS: Jeffrey Alipoon, Marlon Tad-y, Wilbert Vasquez, and Medel Sigueza were drinking whiskey.
Siqueza invited Aposaga to join them but appellant angrily declined, saying.The group started on
their way home when Apozaga carrying an axe in his right hand and a long pointed instrument in his
left, shouted at Sigueza to come near him. Moments later, Alipoon heard a thud as the two men
grappled to wrest control of the weapons held by appellant. Sigueza ran, appellant also ran in the
same direction. Siqueza wasfound in a pool of blood, lying face up
Siqueza’s version: Siqueza walking towards Farmer’s market Medel Sigueza, Jeffrey
Alipoon, Marlon Tad-y and Vasquez. The deceased stabbed Siqueza. Appellant asked the deceased
what was his fault but the deceased stabbed him again. Siqueza was able to parry the blow and push
the deceased. Tad-y and Alipoon then held appellant’s shoulders but he elbowed one of them and
boxed the other with his right hand. The deceased again tried to stab appellant but the latter was
able to hold the hand of the deceased. When Alipoon tried to stab appellant, the latter parried the
blow causing Alipoon to stab the deceased instead. Appellant then pushed the deceased and ran
home.
HELD: The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during an interval of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.There must be evidence showing that the accused
meditated and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and
the time it was actually perpetrated. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.
There is nothing in appellant’s query, “What position would you prefer if you were to die?”
which would clearly indicate that he already conceived of a plan to kill the deceased. It must be
noted that the query was directed to Mugat and the name of the deceased was never mentioned
during their conversation. Moreover, even if appellant and the deceased had an argument a month
before the

night of the stabbing incident, it is settled that mere existence of ill feelings or grudges between the
parties is not sufficient to sustain a conclusion of premeditated killing. Since the time as to when
appellant hatched his plan to kill the deceased has not been established by the prosecution, it cannot
also be deduced as to whether a sufficient interval of time had elapsed from the moment appellant
conceived of his plan to kill the deceased up to the time of the execution of thereof to allow appellant
to reflect on the consequences of his act. Consequently, evident premeditation cannot be
considered to exist. To repeat: It is not sufficient that there is premeditation; it must be evident.
Satur Aposaga is guilty of murder.
 CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE (case no. 10)
PEOPLE v MARQUEZ 117 SCRA 165
FACTS: Lower court found Francisco Forneste & Samuel Jacobo guilty of the crime of robbery w/ rape. Renato
Marquez died during trial.
 Nov. 16, 1966 – accused pretended to be PC soldiers that were looking for contraband. Francisca Marquez
said that there was no contraband in their house. The men ordered her to open up otherwise they’ll shoot.
She opened the window & Renato Marquez forced himself him. The door to the house was then opened & his
companions were able to enter the house.
 The accused demanded the money and other valuable items of the occupants of the house. Leticia (daughter
13 year old) & Rufina (household help) was also raped.
 During the initial investigation Rufina and Leticia did not name names of their aggressors but instead they
described them. Francisca pointed out secretly to the PC that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime
ISSUES:
1. WON the accused were identified beyond reasonable doubt that they were the perpetrators of the
robbery.
 YES. Silence of the complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident
was explained by the ordeal that they just suffered at the hands of the accused.
 The accused were positively identified by the victims and it was not shown that witness have an improper
motive or were biased against them,
 Experience has shown that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants except to
propere authorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm.
2. WON the AC of nighttime, unlawful entry, dwelling of the offended parties, disguise (pretending to be
PC officers) & utter disregard due to victim’s age & sex can be appreciated.
 YES. Properly alleged in the information and was proven by the prosecution.