1

People vs. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389

FACTS:
On February 23, 2000 at 2:00 in the morning, Ventura had conspired with his nephew appellant
Flores to kill Jaime Bocateja because his wife had an affair with the latter. The two accused, armed with
a knife and a revolver, broke through the kitchen door of the Bocateja spouses in order to gain entry
into the house. When the bedroom of the Bocateja spouses was reached by the two appellants,
appellant Ventura pointed his revolver at Jaime to announce a holdup. Jaime and appellant Ventura
then struggled for the possession of the gun. When appellant Flores saw what was happening between
his uncle and Jaime Bocateja, he stabbed the latter thrice. When Aileen had been awakened by the
commotion, she was stabbed by appellant Flores, even though she tried to repel it with an electric cord.
Aileen died as a result.
Appellants argued that the trial court was wrong in considering the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength in the killing of Aileen and the qualifying circumstance of evident
premediation in the attempted murder of Jaime.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court correctly charged the appellants with the crimes of murder
and attempted murder.
RULING:
Bothe the charge of attempted murder and murder was correct. All the elements of evident
premeditation is present the accused planned the killing and clung to their determination in
killing the victim.

People vs. Maron, G.R. No. 232339, 20 November 2019

FACTS:
On 4 January 2010, at around 10:00 p.m., while Michael Clarianes and Alma Exconde were
seated on a bench and engaged in a conversation, three (3) male persons on board a motorcycle
arrived near the shores of Sampaloc Lake, Brgy. 5-A, San Pablo City. Ten minutes later, the man who
urinated suddenly approached Alma and pointed a knife to her neck. Likewise, the person who hid
behind the coconut tree approached Michael and pointed a knife at him. The men then announced,
"holdap ito ilabas na ninyo ang inyong cellphone pera at alahas at hindi kayo mamamatay wag lang
kayong maingay."
Thereafter, the person who stayed at the motorcycle approached Michael and Alma,
brandishing a "kawit." Michael cried for help and attempted to fight. The three men however,
repeatedly stabbed Michael until he slumped on the ground lifeless. On the other hand, accused-
appellants denied the charges against them and interposed their respective alibis.
ISSUE:
Is it possible to admit the testimony of Alma even though the light post can be blocked?
RULING:
The light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample
illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize another and that the headlights of a car or a
jeep are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify appellants at the distance of four to ten meters.
2

Here, Alma's testimony identifying appellants as the perpetrators of the crime is credible since aside
from the illumination provided by the electric post, Alma was already aware of appellants' presence
who were already near her and Michael while they were still talking for ten minutes.

People vs. Pagapulaan, G.R. No. 216936, 29 July 2019

FACTS:
June 21, 2003, at around 7:30 PM, Manuel Vega corner Abellanosa, Consolacion, Cagayan De Oro City.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant's conviction for murder despite the
main witness's failure to positively identify him in court?
RULING:
No, Despite Letecia Pacho's failure to positively identify Batulan in court, other credible and
competent evidence sufficiently established his guilt. The testimonies of Renato and Junjun Fuentes,
who vividly described how Batulan attacked and stabbed Ruben in the neck with a Batangas knife,
were found credible.

People vs. Enojo, G.R. No. 240231, 27 November 2019

FACTS: Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, finding Cresenciano Enojo (accused appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for three (3) counts of murder, for the killing of three (3) children,
namel and one (1) count of frustrated murder, for the wounding of their mother, Cannen A. Cuevas.
One of the child victims, Delfred, hit accused-appellant's dog with a slingshot. At that exact
moment, the accused-appellant was passing by, and in a fit of rage, he told Delfred... ".Key prosecution
witnesses were Felix Montiil (neighbor), Carmen Cuevas, and Dr. Clemente Hipe IV.
Montiil testified that Delfred admitted to striking Enojo's dog with a slingshot.n Carmen
recounted that Enojo assaulted her with a bolo and subsequently killed her children. Dr. Hipe
confirmed Carmen's injuries were life-threatening but were mitigated by medical intervention. Enojo
3

claimed self-defense, asserting that Carmen attacked him first. The RTC sentenced Enojo to reclusion
perpetua for each murder count and 13 years of cadena temporal for the frustrated murder. The CA
affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the penalties and damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the abuse of superior strength and treachery were not present to qualify the crime to
frustrated murder
RULING: NO. As shown in the Information, the weakness of the victim due to his tender age
results in the absence of any danger to the accused. Hence, the mere allegation of the victim's minority
is sufficient to qualify the crime to murder

People vs, Bermudo, G.R. No. 225322, 04 July 2018

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:
4

People vs. Bagabay, G.R. No. 236297, 17 October 2018

People vs. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 232380, 04 September 2019

FACTS:
Around 10:30 in the evening of October 16, 2006,6 Ronald, BJ, Aquiles, Jojo, a certain Juricho,
and an unidentified person went to the residential compound where the victim, Charles Nabaza y
Serrano (Charles), was residing. From outside Charles' unit, Aquiles loudly challenged him to come out
and threatened to kill him, but the group was driven away by Charles' relative. Relentless, the group
returned after a few minutes and proceeded to the door of Charles' unit. There, Aquiles repeatedly
kicked the door, demanded again for Charles to appear, and made threats to kill him. When the door
5

partly opened, Aquiles went to Ronald, who was waiting at the gate with the others, Heading back to
the unit, Aquiles aimed inside and pulled the trigger; however, the sumpak failed to fire. He then
returned the weapon to Ronald, who, in turn, peeked into the opening of the door and fired a single
shot. Thereafter, Ronald and his group fled. Several people who witnessed the incident later found
Charles sprawled on the floor, with a wound on his chest. They then brought him to the hospital where
he was pronounced dead. Ronald and BJ were eventually arrested, while the others remain at-large.
For their part, Ronald and BJ each interposed the defenses of denial and alibi
ISSUE:
whether or not the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of Murder.
RULING: The Supreme Court modified Ronald Jaurigue's conviction from Murder to Homicide.
Ronald was sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum.

People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 224289, 14 August 2019

FACTS:
Appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation for selling illegal drugs punishable under Sec. 5
of R.A. No. 9165. Once appellant was arrested, PO2 Saez marked the sachet he received from the
accused with his initials and then made an inventory of the evidence on site. Thereafter,
Angeles was brought to the station for documentation, investigation, and disposition. There, request
for a laboratory examination was prepared. Thereafter, PO2 Saez brought the specimen and the
request for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and was attended to by a certain Relos, a
receiving clerk. The examination by the forensic chemist yielded the specimen positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant claimed that he was wrongfully arrested by the police officers who allegedly caught
him selling illegal drugs in a buy bust operation.
ISSUE:
Was the procedure under the rules on chain of custody properly complied with on account of
the absence of proper documentation after the seized items were brought to the police station?
RULING:
No. As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be.
6

Simangan vs. People, 434 SCRA

People vs. Dacillo, 427 SCRA 528

FACTS:
The case of People vs. Dacillo revolves around the murder of 17-year-old Rosemarie Tallada,
who was last seen alive on February 6, 2000, at the bridge near the house of appellant Francisco
Dacillo in Purok No. 3, New Society Village, Ilang, Davao City. On that fateful day, witnesses testified
that they saw Rosemarie enter Dacillo's house, and later heard a struggle and a woman being beaten
up. The next day, Dacillo was seen carrying lumber and screen, and was observed going in and out of
his house several times, carefully locking the gate each time. This suspicious behavior raised eyebrows,
and on February 11, 2000, neighbors started smelling a rotten odor coming from Dacillo's house. Upon
investigation, they found a tomb-like structure with Rosemarie's decomposing body inside. Dacillo was
subsequently arrested and charged with murder. The trial court found him guilty of the crime, and he
appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder
RULING:

People vs. Cabareño, 349 SCRA 297

FACTS:
December 13, 1997, [was] the barangay fiesta of Jayobo, Lambunao, Iloilo. At around 9;00 [o]n
the evening of the same day festivities, a disco was going on near the house of Barangay Chairman
Aurelio Catedrilla . Suddenly, there was a commotion near the store that was located a few arm's length
away form the venue of the disco. It involved a certain Pestilo and the younger brother of a certain
7

Manolo. The younger brother of Manolo splashed beer on Pestilo. Then, Aurelio Catedrilla went to the
place where the trouble was to pacify them. He was followed by Nerio Casaquite . When Aurelio
Catedrilla reached the place, Wilbert Cabareño, alias Bebot , shot him at the back with 10 inch long
firearm. However, instead of the bullet hitting Aurelio Cabareño was about two arm's length away from
them when he pulled the trigger. Nerio Casaquite fell to the ground, while Wilbert Cabareño fled the
scene.The Barangay tanod came to Nerio Casaquite's aid and brought him to the hospital . However,
Nerio Casaquite later succumbed to the gunshot wound he sustained.
ISSUE:
Did the trial court err in finding the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witness, Absalon
Lego, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING:
The Court emphasized that the trial court's factual findings and assessments of witnesses re
accorded great weight and even finality unless there is arbitrariness or oversight. Lego's delayed
disclosure of the assailant's identity did not impair his credibility, as he admitted he was afraid to
report immediately.

Ambagan, Jr. vs. People, G.R. Nos. 204481-82, 14 October 2015

FACTS: On July 5, 2004, a shooting incident occurred in the Municipality of Amadeo, Cavite,
resulting in the deaths of SPO2 Reynaldo Santos and Domingo Bawalan. Albert G. Ambagan,
Jr., the Municipal Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, was charged with double homicide by
inducement, along with several other public officers. The prosecution alleged that Ambagan
ordered his men to shoot the victims. The Sandiganbayan First Division found Ambagan guilty
of double homicide as a principal by inducement, based on the testimonies of witnesses,
particularly Ronnel Bawalan and Victor J. Patam. Ambagan and his co-accused pleaded not
guilty, and a joint trial ensued. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan and others,
sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to pay damages to the victims' heirs.
Ambagan appealed the decision, arguing that the testimonies were contradictory and
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding that the testimonies of the prosecution's main
witnesses were irreconcilably contradictory
RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, acquitting Albert G. Ambagan, Jr. of the two counts of
homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence presented by the
prosecution was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ambagan ordered his men to
shoot the victims. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Ronnel Bawalan, were
found to be inconsistent and not credible enough to support a conviction

Gurro vs. People, G.R. Nos. 224562 and 237216, September 18, 2018
FACTS: August 2, 2008, Arnel Salvador (Arnel) brought his daughter AAA to the house of Wennie.
Prosecution witness Patrick Mabulac (Patrick) confirmed that he saw AAA at Wennie's house playing
with the latter's daughters, at around 2:00 p.m. of August 2, 2008. Later on, he saw Wennie leave with
8

AAA. Wennie returned alone at 3:00 p.m. On August 12, 2008, an Information for Kidnapping for
Ransom was filed against Excel. This was later amended to include Wennie and Joel Jamindang y Zosa
(Joel) as additional accused. Joel pleaded guilty, while Excel and Wennie pleaded not guilty. The trial
revealed that AAA was last seen with Wennie, who later returned home alone. AAA's family received
ransom demands via text messages, and despite paying a portion of the ransom, AAA was found
murdered. Excel was implicated for facilitating the transfer of ransom money. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Marikina City convicted Wennie and Joel as principals and Excel as an accomplice. The Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the damages awarded. Both Wennie and
Excel appealed the CA's decision, leading to the consolidation of their cases before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of Wennie and Excel beyond
reasonable doubt.
RULING: The court AFFIRMED with modification. Wennie Idian y Jamindang and Joel Jamindang y Zosa
are declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals to the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom
with Homicide and shall be meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Excel Gurro y Maga shall be held liable as an accessory to the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide and shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

People vs. Tolentino, 380 SCRA 171

FACTS: On February 28, 1996 around 7:30 in the evening, appellant and his cousins, Sheila Guilayan
and Merwin Ledesma, were at their house in Luyahan, Pasonanca, Zamboanga City when their
neighbor Wilfredo Tolentino called them.Once they were inside the house, Wilfredo immediately
revealed his plan to kill Hernan Sagario, Sheila's stepfather. "Around 8:30 in the evening, Hernan
arrivedWhen about an arm’s length away from Hernan, Wilfredo, without saying a word, immediately
walloped Hernan on the right side of the neck sending the latter unconscious and falling face down to
the ground. They then carried Hernan towards the creek about seven meters away from the house.
Upon reaching the creekside, the three stopped and moved closer to the water. At this juncture,
Wilfredo successively stabbed Hernan on different parts of the body causing the latter's instant death.
After throwing the victim's lifeless body in the creek, the three immediately left. Accused Jonathan
Fabros and Wilfredo Tolentino both denied killing the victim. Instead, they pointed to each other as the
one who killed Hernan Sagario. Fabros pointed to Tolentino as the assailant and the latter also fingered
the former as the killer of Sagario.
9

People vs. Pilola, 405 SCRA 134