Digests 53 69

PARUNGAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 96025 May 15, 1991

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds allegedly committed by him as a municipal treasurer. After hearing, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him of  malversation of public funds but convicted him instead of illegal use of public funds. ISSU: Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of illegal use of public funds? RU!ING: Technical malversation is not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime crime of malve malversa rsatio tion n of publ public ic funds funds charg charged ed in the infor informat mation ion.. Since Since the acts acts constituting constituting the crime of technical malversation malversation were not alleged in the information, and since since tech technic nical al malve malversa rsatio tion n does does not includ include, e, or is not not inclu included ded in the crime crime of  malv malver ersa sati tion on of publ public ic fund funds, s, he cann cannot ot resu result ltan antl tly y be conv convic icte ted d of tech techni nica call malversation.

What the respondent court should have done was to follow the procedure laid down in Section , !ule " of the !ules on #riminal Procedure$ Section . When mista%e has been made in charging the proper offense & When it becomes manifest at any time before 'udgment, that a mista%e has been made in charging charging the proper proper offens offense, e, and the accuse accused d cannot cannot be convict convicted ed of the offense offense charged, or of any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be discharged, if there appears to be good cause to detain him. (n such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon upon the the fili filing ng of the the prop proper er info inform rmat atio ion. n. W)*! W)*!*+ *+! !*, *, the the peti petiti tion on is here hereby by -!A -!AT* T*/. /. The The decis decision ion of the the Sand Sandiga iganba nbaya yan n is !*0* !*0*!S !S*/ */.. The The petit petitio ioner ner is  A#12(TT*/  A#12(TT*/ of the the crime of of illegal use of public public funds. funds.

POP! vs. AYUMAN

"2# SCRA 2"$

FACTS: This is an automatic review of the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt, 3rach ", #agayan #agayan de ro #ity where where the accuse accused, d, #onrad #onrado o Ayuman Ayuman,, was found guilty guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay the heirs of the victim P45,555. n April 66, ""7 at around 5$4 in the morning, *rmita Ayuman, the wife of the accused, rushed her  five8year old son Sugar !ay to the *mergency !oom of the orthern 9indanao 9edical #enter. When a nurse, too% the child:s vital signs, it appeared that he was dead on arrival.

*rmita:s statement was noted in the emergency room record. An autopsy was done to the dead body of Sugar !ay. n April 6;, ""7, Sugar !ay was buried. The accused was nowhere to be found. either did he report for wor% from April April 6; to 9ay 6, ""7. /uring the burial, *rmita cried and shouted, 6 the deceased is %illed by the accused@ and >; 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@ The %ey element element here here is the the relat relation ionsh ship ip of the the offe offend nder er with with the the victi victim. m. All the the abov above e eleme elements nts were were suffic sufficien iently tly prov proven en by the prose prosecut cution ion,, speci specific ficall ally y on the basis basis of  circumst circumstanti antial al evidence evidence.. And And also, also, the circumst circumstance ances s cited cited by the trial trial court, court, when when viewed in their entirety, entirety, were as convincing convincing as direct evidence and as such, negate the innocence of the accused. therwise stated, the prosecution established beyond a shadow of doubt, through circumstantial evidence, that accused committed the crime of  parricide. )ere is a father who mercilessly abused his own son and refused to bring him to the hospital, although on the verge of death, for prompt medical treatment. Such a heartless conduct is condemnable and is e=tremely contrary to human nature. *very father is e=pected to love his children and shower them with acts of affection and tenderness.

POP! vs. PUDAN %$$ SCRA 266

FACTS:  This is an appeal from the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt 3ranch , 9alaybalay #ity, finding the accused guilty of murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his victim +lorencio (lar the sum of P45,555. According to the Prosecution, in the morning of +ebruary 6, ""4, +lorencio (lar, accompanied by his grandson, !eymar%, went to the house of Buceno Tulo to buy a piglet. Buceno was fashioning out a mortar for pounding palay near his house when +lorencio and !eymar% arrived. +lorencio told Buceno that he wanted to buy a piglet from him. Accused suddenly arrived and stabbed +lorencio five times, with a sharp, pointed %nife locally %nown as plamingco. Terrified of what he witnessed, Buceno fled towards the house of his neighbor. Coung !eymar% ran bac% to his parentsD house and told his mother, *rlinda, what transpired. *rlinda ran swiftly to BucenoDs place but +lorencio was already dead, bathed in his own blood and lying by the side of the rice paddy. The body remained where it had fallen until the arrival of the police later that day. n the part of the /efense, the wife of the accused, Beah testified, admitted having an illicit relationship with the deceased. Their relationship had been going on for two years and was %nown in their barangay, e=cept her !oger. (n the morning of +ebruary 6, ""4, +lorencio came to their house, while she was breastfeeding her child, and was loo%ing for her husband.

ISSU:  Whether the Trial #ourt erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of  murder instead of Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode.

RU!ING: The /ecision of the Trial #ourt was affirmed. 3y raising Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode as his defense, accused admitted that he %illed the victim. 3y invo%ing this defense, he waived his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving FG That a legally married person >or a parent surprises his spouse >or his daughter, under  years of age and living with him, in the act of  committing se=ual intercourse with another person@ F6G That he or she %ills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical in'ury in the act or  immediately thereafter@ F;G That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife >or daughter or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other  spouse@ To satisfy this burden, accused must prove that he actually surprised his wife and +lorencio in flagrante delicto, and that he %illed the man during or immediately thereafter. What is important is that his version of the stabbing incident is diametrically

opposed to the convincing accounts of Prosecution Witnesses. +urther eroding the defense of the accused is the fact that he immediately fled right after the stabbing incident. )e hid for about three years until he was arrested.

POP! vs. ABARCA 15% SCRA #%5 FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt of Palo, Beyte, sentencing the accused8appellant +rancisco Abarca to death for the comple= crime of  murder with double frustrated murder. The case was elevated to this #ourt in view of the death sentence imposed. With the approval of the new #onstitution, abolishing the penalty of death and commuting all e=isting death sentences to life imprisonment, we required the accused8appellant to inform us whether or not he wished to pursue the case as an appealed case. (n compliance therewith, he filed a statement informing us that he wished to continue with the case by way of an appeal. n Huly 4, "E at around I$55 P9, accused +rancisco Abarca went home and found his wife, Henny, and Jhingsley Joh in the act of se=ual intercourse. When the wife and Joh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built8in cabinet in their room 'umped and ran away. The accused went to loo% for a firearm at Tacloban #ity. At around I$;5 p.m. he got an 98I rifle and went bac% to his house. )e was not able to find his wife and Joh there. )e proceeded to the hangout of Jingsley Joh. The accused found Joh playing mah8'ong and fired at him three times with his rifle. Joh was hit and died instantaneously. Arnold and Bina Amparado who were occupying the ad'acent room were also hit by the shots fired by the accused. Arnold and Bina Amparado were rushed to the hospital and were rendered timely medical assistance that prevented their deaths. ISSU: Whether or not Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode defining death inflicted under e=ceptional circumstances can be applied in the instant case dissolving the criminal liability of the accused for the murder of the deceased. RU!ING: C*S. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode which provides$ KAny legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing se=ual intercourse with another person, shall %ill any of them or  both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical in'ury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.L

 Article 6E7 prescribes the following elements$ > that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing se=ual intercourse with another person@ and >6 that he %ills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.

*ven though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his wife with Joh and the time he %illed Joh, the %illing was still the direct by8product of AbarcaDs rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the death of Joh. )owever, Abarca is still liable for the in'uries he caused to the two other persons he shot in the ad'acent room but his liability shall not be for frustrated murder. (n the first place, Abarca has no intent to %ill the other two persons in'ured. )e was not also committing a crime when he was firing his gun at Joh M it being under Art. 6E7. Abarca was however negligent because he did not e=ercise all precaution to ma%e sure no one else will be hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious physical in'uries through simple negligence for the in'uries suffered by the two other persons who were in the ad'acent room when the incident happened.

POP! vs. CORICOR #9 P&I!. 6#2 FACTS:  Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Bego in the sum of P6,555, and to pay the costs, having been found by the lower court guilty of murder committed on September 4, "E. 3ased upon circumstantial and testimonial evidences that were presented it was found out that the wife of the accused was having illicit se=ual relationship with the victim and that the accused has caught them in actual se=ual activity. ISSU: Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime of murder. RU!ING: C*S. We are of the opinion that the circumstances under which Pedro Bego was %illed by appellant were as narrated in the latter:s testimony and, accordingly, the appealed decision must be modified, so as to reduce the penalty to that provided in the following article of the !evised Penal #ode.

 A!T. 6E7. /eath or physical in'uries inflicted under e=ceptional circumstances. & Any legally married person, who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing se=ual intercourse with another person, shall %ill any of them or both of them in the act or  immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical in'ury, shall suffer  the penalty of destierro. (f he shall inflict upon them physical in'uries of any other %ind, he shall be e=empt from punishment. These rules shall applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.  Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or  shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

POP! vs. MA!!ARI "0" SCRA 1#0 FACTS: While Hoseph and BiNa >wife were watching a bas%etball game at the barangay bas%etball court, !ufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Hoseph@ but Hoseph was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up with him, !ufino boarded and drove the truc% par%ed near the bas%etball court and continued chasing Hoseph until the truc% ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous death.

 Appreciating the qualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle, it convicted !ufino of murder. ISSU: Whether or not the use of a motor vehicle is a qualifying circumstance for the crime of murder? RU!ING: The evidence shows that !ufino deliberately used his truc% in pursuing Hoseph. 2pon catching up with him, !ufino hit him with the truc%, as a result of which Hoseph died instantly. (t is therefore clear that the truc% was the means used by !ufino to perpetrate the %illing of Hoseph.

The case of People v. Muñoz cited by !ufino finds no application to the present case. (n the said case, the police patrol 'eep was merely used by the accused therein in loo%ing for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it was dumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latterOs death. (n the present case, the truc% itself was used to %ill the victim by running over him. 2nder Article 6E of the !evised Penal #ode, a person who %ills another by means of a motor vehicle ‖is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies the %illing to murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. (n view of  the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the presence of one mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua, not death, should be the penalty to be imposed on !ufino.

POP! vs. '&ISN&UNT %6$ SCRA 5$6 FACTS: (n the 9unicipality of San Huan, 9etro 9anila, Philippines, and within the  'urisdiction of this )onorable #ourt, the accused whisenhunt did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to %ill and ta%ing advantage of superior strength, attac%, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one *lsa  there be several persons@ >6 that they did not compose groups organiNed for  the common purpose of assaulting and attac%ing each other reciprocally@ >; these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner@>E someone was %illed in the course of the affray@ >4 it cannot be ascertained who actually %illed the deceased@ and >I that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical in'uries or who used violence be can be identified.

 A tumultuous affray ta%es place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is %illed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was between one distinct group and one individual. #onfusion may have occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists, but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to 9aria rosa Street. (t was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists pic%ed on one defenseless individual and attac%ed him repeatedly, ta%ing turns in inflicting punches, %ic%s and blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident.  As the lower courts found, the victimOs assailantOs were numerous by as much as fifty in number and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. They too% advantage of their superior strength and e=cessive force and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo to escape and free himself. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he finally lost unconsciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of  superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the %illing of murder.

DADO vs. POP! %92 SCRA "6 FACTS: The present case is a petition for review under !ule E4 of the !ules of #ourt assailing the decision of the #ourt of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt of Judarat finding the -eronimo /ado and +rancisco *raso guilty of the crime of homicide. The information charged both /ado and *raso with murder  allegedly committed by said the accused, armed with firearms, with intent to %ill, with evident premeditation and treachery, and shot Silvestre 3alinas thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which caused his instant death.

The antecedent facts as narrated by prosecution witnesses Alfredo 3alinas and !ufo Alga were as follows$ n the night of 9ay 64, ""6, the *speranNa, Sultan Judarat Police Station formed three teams to intercept some cattle rustlers. The Team composed of the petitioner SPE -eronimo /ado and #A+-2 members +rancisco *raso, Aflredo3alinas and !ufo Alga waited behind a large di%e. Alfredo 3alinas and !ufo Alga, who were both armed with 9E armalite rifles, were positioned between the petitioner, who was armed with a caliber .E4 pistol, and accused +rancisco *raso, who was carrying an 9I armalite rifle. At around $55 of that same evening, the team saw somebody approaching at a distance of 45 meters. When he was about 4 meters away from the team, Alfredo 3alinas noticed that +rancisco *raso was ma%ing some movements. 3alinas told *raso to wait, but before 3alinas could beam his flashlight, *raso fired his 9I armalite rifle at the approaching man. (mmediately thereafter, petitioner fired a single shot from his .E4 caliber pistol. The victim turned out to be Silvestre K3utsoyL 3alinas, the nephew of Alfredo 3alinas. *raso embraced Alfredo 3alinas to show his repentance for his deed. ISSU: Whether accused is guilty of homicide instead of illegal discharge of firearm only. RU!ING: (n convicting the petitioner, both the trial court and the #ourt of Appeals found that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime. The #ourt of Appeals ruled that petitioner /ado and accused *raso conspired in %illing the deceased, thus, it is no longer necessary to establish who caused the fatal wound in as much as conspiracy ma%es the act of one conspirator the act of all. Although the agreement need not be directly proven, circumstantial evidence of such agreement must nonetheless be convincingly shown. (n the case at bar, petitioner and accused *rasoDs seemingly concerted and almost simultaneous acts were more of a spontaneous reaction rather  than the result of a common plan to %ill the victim. *vidently, the prosecution failed to prove that the metallic fragments found in the fatal wound of the victim were particles of  a .E4 caliber bullet that emanated from the .E4 caliber pistol fired by petitioner. )ence, the Supreme #ourt set aside the decision of the #ourt of Appeals affirming the conviction of petitioner for the crime of homicide and acquitted the petitioner of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. A new decision was entered finding petitioner -eronimo /ado guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm and

sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of si= >I months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two >6 years and eleven > months of prision correccional, as ma=imum.

POP! vs. SA!UFRANIA %$9 SCRA 22"

FACTS: +ilomeno Salufrania by bo=ing and strangling 9A!#(AA A32C8 SAB2+!A(A, his lawfully wedded wife and who was at the time  months on the family way, caused upon her in'uries resulting in her instantaneous death and the death of the child who was still in its maternal womb. Thus +ilomeno was charged with the comple= crime of parricide with intentional abortion committed. The lower court found +ilomeno guilty as charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. )ence, the automatic review of the case by the Supreme #ourt. +ilomeno alleges that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the comple= crime of parricide with intentional abortion, as there is no evidence to show that he had the intention to cause an abortion. ISSU: Whether or not the conviction of the accused for the comple= crime of parricide with intentional abortion is proper? RU!ING: o. +ilomeno Salufrania should not be held guilty of the comple= crime of  parricide with intentional abortion but of the comple= crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.

The elements of 2nintentional Abortion are as follows$ . That there is a pregnant woman. 6. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. ;. That the violence is intentionally e=erted. E. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been e=pelled there from. (t has been clearly established >a that 9arciana Abuyo was seven >7 to eight > months pregnant when she was %illed@ >b that violence was voluntarily e=erted upon her by her husband +ilomeno@ and >c that, as a result of said violence, 9arciana Abuyo died together with the fetus in her womb. The abortion was caused by the same violence that caused the death of the wife, 9arciana Abuyo, such violence being voluntarily e=erted by +ilomeno upon her. )owever, the intent to cause the abortion has not been sufficiently established. 9ere bo=ing on the stomach, ta%en together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient proof to show intent to cause an abortion. (n fact, +ilomeno must have merely intended to %ill his wife but not necessarily to cause an abortion.

POP! vs. GNO3S 61 P&I!. %$2 FACTS:  #rispin -enoves and deceased Soledad !ivera were laborers in ad'oining cane fields. !ivera claimed that the yo%e of the plow which the accused was repairing belonged to her and tried to ta%e it by force. The accused struc% her with his fist causing her to fall to the ground. She got up and returned to the quarrel where she received another fist blow on the left chee% causing her to fall again to the ground. (mmediately after the incident, the deceased proceeded to the municipal building, she complained to the chief of police of pain in the abdomen as she was pregnant at the time. +or a few days, the deceased suffered from hemorrhage and pain which resulted in the painful and difficult premature delivery of one of the twin babies that she way carrying, but the other baby could be delivered. 3oth babies were dead.-enoves was convicted in the #ourt of +irst (nstance of ccidental egros of the comple= crime of homicide with abortion. An appeal was made by the accused. ISSU: Should the accused be held guilty for the death of the victim and her unborn child? RU!ING: (t is generally %nown that a fall is liable to cause premature delivery, and the evidence shows a complete sequel of events from the assault to her death. The accused must be held responsible for the natural consequences of his act. )owever, the mitigating circumstances of lac% of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that inflicted and provocation are present, as the offended party by force induced the accused to use force on his part. The abortion in this case is unintentional abortion denounced by  Article 647 of the !evised Penal #ode. n the whole case, the period of confinement is fi=ed at twelve years and one day to fourteen years, eight months and one day of  reclusion temporal and the indemnity is fi=ed at P, 555.