PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIONISIO CALONGE G.R. No.

182793, July 5, 2010 Parricide

Facts:
Rosita A. Calonge was appellants legitimate wife, with whom he had three children. On December 1, 2001 at
around 6:00 oclock in the morning, the Villaverde Police Station received a radio call from the barangay captain of Cabuluan that
a massacre took place in their locality. Rositas bloodied body was found lying on the ground about fifteen (15) meters away from
their house. Her right hand was loosely clasping a knife. Lying on his back near the stairs was appellant who was also wounded
but still conscious. Beside him were a bolo and a flashlight, both stained with blood. While the windows of the house were
locked with a piece of tie wire, the door was already opened. Inside the two bedrooms of the house separated only by a
curtain, they found the lifeless bodies of the two young girls, Kimberly and Dony Rose. The other child, Melody, was also bloodied
but alive and conscious. They brought Melody to the Veterans Regional Hospital where she was treated and confined for
seventeen days. Melodys grandparents said they knew it was appellant because they had heard Rosita shouting that appellant
will kill them. On the other hand, when appellant was asked what happened and who attacked him, he answered he does not
know. Appellant was charged with parricide and frustrated parricide.

Issue: Is the accused guilty of the crime charged?

Ruling:
YES. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or
the legitimate spouse of accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. All the elements
of the crime were clearly and sufficiently proved by the prosecution.
Even granting arguendo that Melody did not see the
actual stabbing of her mother and two (2) sisters, the attendant circumstances point to no one else but the appellant as the
perpetrator. Direct evidence of the actual killing is not indispensable for convicting an accused when circumstantial evidence can
sufficiently establish his guilt. The oft-repeated rule has been that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction if there is
more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven and the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. While no general rule can be laid down as to the
quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a given case, all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the guilty person.
In the killing of victims in this case, the trial court was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. There is
treachery when the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no opportunity either to avert the attack or to defend
himself. Indeed, nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than when a father stabs to death his two young daughters while
they were sound asleep and totally defenseless.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA G.R. No. 184172, May 8, 2009 Parricide

Facts: On appeal is the 21 January 2008 Decision of the Court of affirming the conviction of appellant Luis Antonio Garchitorena
of the crime of parricide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.

The accusatory portion of the information reads:

That on or about the16th day of [August 2000], in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then the
legitimate husband of FLORDELIZA TABLA GARCHITORENA, with intent to kill, did then and there, [willfully], unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of said FLORDELIZA TABL[A] GARCHITORENA, his
wife, by then and there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on the head, thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wound,

which was the direct and immediate cause of her untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said FLORDELIZA
TABLA GARCHITORENA.

Issue: Is accused guilty of parricide? Ruling: YES.The elements of the crime of parricide are: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of the
accused or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.

All the above elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. It was stipulated during the pre-trial that appellant and the
victim are married on 24 August 1999. That the appellant killed the victim was proven specifically by circumstantial evidence.

As aptly stated by the trial court:

In the instant case, the totality of the circumstances warrant a finding that accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. The fact that accused and the deceased were the only persons in the bedroom when the shooting incident occurred is
undisputed. Secondly, there was an argument between the spouses, as narrated by the accused to the police investigator and
during trial. Thirdly, accused, giving no logical excuse, got a gun. In this, the Court finds criminal purpose. Also, there is a
finding by this Court of improbability of the deceased shooting herself.

While admittedly there is no direct evidence presented by the prosecution on the killing of the deceased by the accused,
the established circumstances aforestated, however, constituted an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other [hypothesis] that he is not. And when circumstantial evidence
constitutes an unbroken chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other, it cannot be overcome by
inaccurate and doubtful evidence submitted by the accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RENATO ESPAOL

G.R. No. 175603, February 13, 2009

Parricide Facts:
At about 2:00 a.m. of February 2, 2000, Domingo Petilla was waiting for his companions at Pantal Road,
Dagupan City on their way to Manila. All of a sudden, he heard two successive gunshots. A few moments later, a yellow tricycle
sped past him along Pantal Road headed towards Sitio Guibang, Dagupan City. The tricycle was driven by a man wearing a
dark-colored long-sleeved shirt. Petillas companions arrived shortly thereafter on board a van. As they started loading their
things, they saw, through the lights of their vehicle, a person lying on the pavement along Pantal Road. Upon closer scrutiny,
they discovered the lifeless body of Gloria Espaol. The gunshots were also heard by Harold Villanueva, a boatman working at
the Pantal River, while he was waiting for passengers at the dock about 100 meters away from the crime scene. The shots were

followed by the sound of a motorcycles revving engine. He then saw a speeding yellow tricycle. The tricycle bore the name
Rina in front of its cab. Its driver was wearing a dark jacket and blue pants. Out of curiosity, he (the boatman) went there and
recognized the victim as one of his regular passengers. Appellant arrived at the scene and Villanueva noticed that the appellant
seemed to be wearing the same clothes as those worn by the driver of the speeding tricycle. He was subsequently charged of
parricide.

Issue: Is the accused guilty of parricide?

Ruling:
YES. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is the killing of ones legitimate or illegitimate father,
mother, child, any ascendant, descendant or spouse and is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death. None of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual killing of the victim by appellant. However, their separate and detailed
accounts of the surrounding circumstances reveal only one conclusion: that it was appellant who killed his wife. Well-entrenched
is the rule that the trial courts evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is accorded great respect in the absence of proof that it
was arrived at arbitrarily or that the trial court overlooked material facts. The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a
witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the direct opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the
witnesses at the witness stand and detect if they are telling the truth or not. The Court will not interfere with the trial court's
assessment of the credibility of witnesses.
In sum, the guilt of appellant was sufficiently established by circumstantial
evidence. Reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed considering that there was neither any mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance present. The heirs of the victim are entitled to a civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000, which is mandatory upon
proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused for the death.