Polo vs.

People
G.R. No. 160541, October 24, 2008
CARPIO, J.

Facts: The petitioner, Ronelo Polo was found guilty of homicide for the murder of the Danilo Balisoro.
Polo admitted hacking Balisoro with a bolo but claimed to have done it in self-defense. The trial court
did not appreciate this claim because Polo failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part
of Balisoro.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on
Polo’s behalf?

Held: No. The Court of Appeals was correct in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation in Polos favor. In this case, there was no showing that Balisoro provoked Polo. If there was
indeed provocation from Balisoro, it was not adequate to excite Polo to commit a wrong, which must be
proportionate in gravity. Also, a sufficient interval of time had already elapsed giving Polo time to regain
his reason and exercise self-control.

People vs. Simon

Facts: On the 19th day of February 1994, the accused, Michael Simon, among with 5 others, killed
Angelito Maniaol. He was found guilty by the trial court of the crime of murder and was imposed the
death penalty. The witness testified that the victim was slapped, punched, kicked on the different parts
of his body, tied his hands, hit the head with a piece of wood, hit the chest and head with a gun and was
strangled to death on the neck, with a piece of wire, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries,
which caused the his death.

Issue: Whether the lower court seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion in convicting the
appellant?

Held: No. Treachery was correctly considered by the trial court as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
It was alleged in the Information and proved during the hearing. Aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength is also already absorbed in treachery, therefore, cannot be appreciated separately as
an independent aggravating circumstance. Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 16,
R.A. 7659, punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death. The presence of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery qualifies the killing to murder. There being no aggravating circumstance
present, the imposition of reclusion perpetua, being the minimum, is in order.
People vs. Parazo
G.R. No. 121176 May 14, 1997

Facts: On or about the 6th day of January 1995, the appellant Marlon Parazo, had carnal knowledge with
Cristina Capulong, without the latter’s consent, and that he stabbed the victim with a knife, inflicting
upon her stab wounds on the different parts of her body. The RTC convicted the appellant for Rape and
Frustrated Homicide. The appellant denied the charge.

Issue: Whether the lower court’s erred in not appreciating the defense of the accused-appellant?

Held: No. The lower court's decision should be affirmed. Accused-appellant's denial and alibi do not
inspire belief. It has been held that alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution's witness. With the presence of one aggravating
circumstance, i.e., dwelling, the law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the
greater penalty of death shall be applied.

People vs. Caballes

Facts: Appellant Eduardo Caballes, with co-accused Reynaldo Mabini, took turns in having sexual
intercourse with Miguela Baculi, against her will. The appellant was charged with two counts of rape and
sentenced twice to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether abuse of strength should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime?

Held: No. The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. Although the trial court did not elaborate on the basis of its conclusion, it relied on the finding
that the crime was committed by two persons who used a knife to terrorize the victim. The CA did not
sustain this view since the use of knife or the commission of crime by two persons is included as an
integral part of the crime. The RTC’s sentence of reclusion perpetua to the appellant was affirmed by the
CA.

People vs. Dumalahay

Facts: Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante were killed by appellant, Rodney Dumalahay among
with two other accused with an armalite rifle while on board a vehicle. The accused was charged with
two counts of Murder before the RTC and was sentenced to double penalties of death.

Issue: Whether treachery is attendant in the present case?

Held: Yes. The court found the commission of the said offense is accompanied by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery. In this case, the deceased were killed inside the pickup truck. The signal to
shoot was treacherously and surreptitiously pre-arranged between Dumalahay and Allan Halasan. The
court modified the sentence of the accused to reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Peña
G.R. No. 183567, January 19, 2009
NACHURA, J.

Facts: On March 8, 1997, at around 7:00 in the evening, Danilo M. Sareño, while having dinner, was shot
by Avelino dela Peña, Jr. at the back. The appellant was convicted for the murder of the victim.

Issue: Whether treachery is attendant in the present case?

Held: Yes. It has many times been held that treachery exists when the defenseless victim is shot from
behind and that this shows that accused had employed means of attack which offered no risk to him
from any retaliatory act which the victim might have taken. The Court affirmed the decision of the CA
convicting the appellant for murder.

People vs. Tiongson

Facts: Accused Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, where he
is detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of escaping, Tiongson killed Pat.
Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force of Bulalacao, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, who went in pursuit of them. By
reason thereof, Rudy Tiongson was charged with two counts of Murder and was sentenced with penalty
of death. The accused pleaded guilty to both.

Issue: Whether the incident was aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, in
contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and with abuse of superior strength?

Held: No. It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the
information, including the aggravating circumstances listed therein, yet where there has been a hearing
and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, they should be disallowed in the judgment.
Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the
victims existed. The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since are not persons in authority, but merely
agents of a person in authority. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must
also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed superior strength in the
killing of Pat. Gelera. As heretofore stated, the accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide.
People vs. Torrefiel
G.R. No. 115431. April 18, 1996
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.

Facts: Jose Torrefiel was charged with two counts of murder and robbery. Victims, Leopoldo Mangilog
and his son, Reynaldo were both killed in their house by the group of Torrefiel. The accused pleaded not
guilty and invoked alibi as defense.

Issue: Whether the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder?

Held: No. The Court of Appeals appreciated abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men and evident
premeditation as aggravating circumstances thus qualifying the crime to murder. Accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case of murder

Capili vs. CA
G.R. No. 139250. August 15, 2000
GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Facts: On or about November 5, 1993, accused, Gabriel Capili, received and acquired assorted pieces of
jewelry and several pieces of old coins (U.S. dollar), all valued at P3,000,000.00 which he knew to have
been derived from a crime of theft. Capili was convicted for violation of P.D. 1612.

Issue: Whether the accused is an accessory/accomplice to the commission of the theft of the stolen
items?

Held: No. Michael Manzo, the former houseboy of Christine Diokno, the owner of the stolen jewelry,
admitted to stealing of the items. The accused did not participate in the commission of the crime. Thus,
an element in crime of fencing being the accused not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of
the crime of robbery or theft is present. The court affirmed the decision of the CA convicting the
accused for violation of P.D. 1612.