1. 2. 3. 4.

Generic Specific Qualifying Inherent- ex. Crimes against public morals

People vs. Capalac -Stabbing, apparently without provocation, of one Moises Capalac by Jimmy Magaso -September 20, 1970, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, duly licensed cockpit in the city of Iligan -The aggressor, Jimmy Magaso, attempting to escape, was confronted by two brothers of Moises, Jesus Capalac and appellant Mario Capalac. -The attempt of Magaso to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not to be appeased. He was pistolwhipped by appellant Mario Capalac, being dealt several blows on the head and the face. After he had fallen to the ground, Jesus Capalac stabbed the deceased on the chest three or four times. He was brought to the hospital where he died, the cause, according to the coroner's report, being "haemorrhagic shock due to a wound of the heart" -After trial duty held, Mario Capalac was convicted of murder. LC also found that the crime was committed with evident premeditation and treachery. LC also

held that the appellant took advantage of his position as a police officer and employed means or brought about the circumstances which added ignominy to the natural effects of his act. It sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. -Present case -4 errors: 1) Absence of conspiracy -The circumstances indicative of the manner, by which the two brothers, as well as their two companions, who apparently were not apprehended as they were not included in the information, attacked the hapless victim, would suffice to show conspiracy. They apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises Capalac. They were impelled by a common purpose. They acted in concert. 2) Deny the existence of qualifying -crime was one of murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Magaso's situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile and unavailing. His hands were in surrender. That notwithstanding, he was pistol-

whipped. When lying prostrate on the ground, he was stabbed. It must be remembered that, according to the testimonial evidence, there were two other persons assisting the brothers Capalac. If they were not included in the information, the explanation would appear to be that they managed to elude capture. There was no risk, therefore, to the aggressors, no hope for the victim. 3) Deny the existence of aggravating circumstances -erred. Justice Mapa, in United States v. Alavares, made clear that an aggravating circumstance must be "as fully proven as the crime itself". -no evidence of premeditation -they were prompted by the desire to avenge their brother -the mere fact that the appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the police force did not itself justify that the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender of his public position be considered as present

minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal maximum. LC affirmed.

People vs. Gapasin 6th day of October, 1979 at Barangay San Jose, municipality of Roxas, province of Isabela, Philippines, accused CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES and NICK SALUDARES, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, shoot Jerry Calpito with an Armalite rifle SN No. 3267485 Cal. 5.56 issued to the accused PC soldier under MR dated September 17, 1979 by the 118th PC Company, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on the body of the latter, step and kick the victim several times, causing his instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds -That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the accused having stepped and kicked the body of the decease; (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) taking advantage of public position, with respect to the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC soldier

4) Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense 5)"discarding the ante mortem statement of the victim"

Accused is found guilty of murder, decision modified. Accused is sentenced to 10 years and one day prision mayor

Procedural shit, trial court ensued after 6 years, several of the accused posted bail

head "severing the skull and brain tissues" -victim was in a standing position when he was shot by someone positioned at his right

-According to the prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 PM of October 6, 1979 after attending the "pamisa" for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant fired more shots at him. Thereafter, accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustino Calpito ran to succor her fallen husband. -Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares' group chased them. -Body of Calpito autopsied and found out that victim sustained four bullet wounds: (1) on the right lateral side of the arm fracturing the humerus; (2) on the right lateral side of the thorax, anterior, between the 5th and 6th ribs with exit wound at the sternum; (3) on the left side of the thorax, anterior, between the 5th and 6th ribs; and (4) on the right fronto-parietal portion of the

Defense Version: -Appellant invoked self-defense. He testified that he was issued a mission order on Sep 23, 1979 to investigate a report re: presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela -The following day, he was instructed by Sgt. Dominador Ignacio to get in touch with Nicanor Saludares who may be able to give him ingo on the identities of the persons with unlicensed firearms in the place -When appellant met Saludares, he was informed that Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed firearm -Oct. 5, 1979, Saludares informed appellant that it would be best for him to see Jerry Calpito the following day as a relative of the latter would be buried -Next day, appellant went to Barangay San Jose, arriving there at 12 noon -Went to house of Saludares after which went to house of Entend Teppang to attend the "pamisa" -Saludares advised appellant against confronting Calpito because it would create a disturbance at the "pamisa". He also told appellant that Calpito would

surely pass Saludares' house on his way home -Appellant and Nicanor Saludares positioned themselves inside the yard of the latter, when appellant saw Calpito, he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When Calpito was about three meters away from him, appellant asked him what was bulging in his waist, instead of answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired twice at the appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the ground simultaneously firing his armalite -Appellant's claim of self-defense is belied by finding of the trial court on the nature of the wounds, also had he and Saludares not intended to harm the victim, they could have simply apprehended him -Premeditation was present and should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance -The information alleged three other generic aggravating circumstances: ignominy, abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of public position -TC correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of the of the autopsy conducted by the doctor who failed to find any other injuries such as bruises and contusions which may indicate that the victim was kicked by his assailants -corrected held treachery abuse of superior strength

-TC properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as aggravating circumstance -Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order -Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's favor but this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position; therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against appellant

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, with the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation; penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the late Jerry Calpito, Sr. the sum of P88, 596 as actual or compensatory damages, P30,000 as death indemnity; P20,000 as moral damages; P30,000 as exemplary damages People vs. Tiongson At about 3 oclock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, accused Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide

-While in the act of escaping Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro -Upon arraignment, the said accused pleaded guilty -evidence presented by the prosecution does not warrant, nor support, the finding that the killing of Pat. Zosimo Gelera was qualified by treachery since the prosecution failed to present any eyewitness who directly saw the killing of Pat. Gelera -In the instant case, it does not appear how and in what position the victim was when he was killed so that it cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted a mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the victim might put up -Considering that PC Constable Canela had been sufficiently fore People vs. Magdueno -On 15th day of October, 1980 the accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did there and then wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one FERNANDO M. DILIG, inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

-Committed with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation that the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise; and that the crime was committed in contempt with or with insult to authorities On October 15, 1980, a few minutes past 8:00 o'clock in the morning, as soon as the late Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat inside his jeep parked near his house at the corner Roxas and D. Mendoza Streets, Puerto Princesa City, all of a sudden, two successive gunshots burst into the air, as the gunman coming from his left side aimed and poured said shots into his body, inflicting two fatal wounds (Exhibit N) that instantaneously caused his death. Three witnesses positively identified the assailant as accused Hermogenes Magdueo: (1) Elena Adion Lim, while sitted (sic) at the gate of her fence, about 20 to 30 meters away from the house of Fiscal Dilig, saw the gunman coming from where she heard two successive shots when he passed by her house, bringing a short gun in his right hand and a clutch bag while hurriedly proceeding towards Liwanag Street. On October 30, 1980, she identified accused Magdueno as the man she saw that early morning of October 15, 1980; (2) Ernesto Mari Y Gonzales, a security guard of the Malaria Eradication Service, this City, while on board a tricycle, passing in front of the house of Fiscal Dilig, on his way home, likewise heard the two gunshots coming from the

direction of Fiscal Dilig's house, prompting him to order the driver to stop. He described the gunman as wearing a white polo shirt, blue pants and a hat, still holding the gun pointed at Fiscal Dilig. When the gunman turned to his left side, Mari saw a scar on his left temple below his left eyebrow. The man was still holding the gun in his right hand while walking in a limping manner towards Mendoza Street. On the witness chamber, he positively identified accused Hermogenes Magdueno as the gunman; (3) Cynthia Canto a taxi dancer, residing at Jose Abad Santos, this City, while in front of the store of Aling Charing near the house of Fiscal Dilig, waiting for a tricycle, saw the gunman standing by for quite a time, then went nearer Fiscal Dilig who was then sitted (sic) on the driver's seat of his jeep and fired two successive shots tothe latter, exiting towards Mendoza Street. She could not be mistaken that accused Hermogenes Magdueno was the gunman and when she came face to face with him at the invitation of the police inPlaridel, Aborlan, Palawan, she readily Identified Magdueo as the killer.

3) Disregard of rank, age, or sex; dwelling 4) Abuse of confidence 5) Committed in the Palace of the Chief Executive, etc., or place of Religious worship

Aggravating Circumstances: -increases the penalty 1) Taking advantage of a public office 2) Insult to public authority