PEOPLE VS.
DULIN
GR NO. 171284, JUNE 29, 2015
FIGHTING COCK, SELF-DEFENSE
Self-Defense
FACTS:
A young man came running from the house of Vicente Danao towards the house of Batulan,
shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had been stabbed. Alexander Tamayao rushed towards
Danao’s house, which was about 30 meters from his own house, and there he saw Alfredo Dulin
stabbing Francisco Batulan who was already prostrate face down. Dulin was on top of Batulan,
as if kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was holding Batulan by the hair with
his left hand, and thrusting the knife at the latter with his right hand. Seeing this, Tamayao ran towards
Batulan’s house to inform Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who was his aunt, about the incident.
Tamayao mentioned of the long-standing grudge between Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them
fighting in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two occasions: He will soon have his day and I will
kill him.
DEFENSE:
He was in his house when Nicanor Annariao and Raymund Soriano arrived at his house to see the
fighting cocks being sold by Alberto Eugenio (Alberto); that Alberto was not yet around, arriving only at
about 8:00 o’clock in the evening to talk with Raymund and Nicanor about the price of the fighting cocks;
that after their transaction, Alberto served Nicanor and Raymund food, and he (Dulin) and Jun Danao
thereafter accompanied Raymund and Nicanor to the highway to get a tricycle ride, but on their way, they
passed Angel Bancud who called out to him: that he (Dulin) asked the others to go ahead, and he would
just catch up with them; that as he (Dulin) approached Bancud, Batulan, the cousin of his (Dulin) mother,
stabbed him on the right side of his body and in the left hand; that he complained to Batulan: Uncle, you
hit me (Dinisgrasya nakun), but Batulan replied: I will really kill you; that he (Dulin) ran to the upper
level of Carolina Danao’s house, pursued by Batulan who stabbed him again several times; that they
grappled for the weapon until he (Dulin) was able to wrest it from Batulan; that he (Dulin) stabbed
Batulan with the weapon, and they struggled until he (Dulin) felt weak, eventually falling to the ground;
and that he (Dulin) regained consciousness only the next day at the hospital. Dulin insisted that there was
no grudge between him and Batulan, but interjected that the barangay captain would summon him to
bring Batulan home each time the latter got drunk at night.
ISSUE(S):
1. WON there was Self-Defense?
2. WON there was treachery present?
RULING:
1. NO, There was no Self-Defense. The most important of all the elements of self defense
is unlawful aggression, which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as
a justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the
accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two
other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any
unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.
Unlawful aggression has two kinds:
(a) actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a
weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the
injury; and
(b) imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the
victim
Dulin argues that the CA should have appreciated the justifying circumstance of self- defense in his
favor because all its elements had been present in the commission of the crime. In rejecting Dulin’s
argument, the CA observed that although Batulan had initiated the attack against Dulin the unlawful
aggression from Batulan effectively ceased once Dulin had wrested the weapon from the latter. Appellant
testified that after the initial stabbing attack on him, he was able to take possession of the weapon and ran
towards the second level of the house of Vicente Danao, away from FRANCISCO. At that point, the
unlawful aggression against him effectively ceased. When FRANCISCO and appellant again grappled for
possession of the weapon, appellant now became the armed protagonist, and FRANCISCO’s act of trying
to wrest the weapon cannot be considered as unlawful aggression. At that moment, appellant no longer
faced any imminent or immediate danger to his life and limb from FRANCISCO.
It is notable, too, that the results of the medico-legal examination indicating Batulan to have sustained
twelve stab wounds25 confirmed the cessation of the attack by Batulan. The numerosity and nature of the
wounds inflicted by the accused reflected his determination to kill Batulan, and the fact that he was not
defending himself.
Dulin vigorously insists that the initial aggression employed by Batulan did not cease because the latter
followed him into Danao’s house with the singular purpose of ending his life; and that there was no gap in
the aggression initiated by Batulan.24 The insistence is unwarranted. Dulin admitted having successfully
disarmed Batulan and then running away from him. With the aggression by Batulan having thereby
ceased, he did not anymore pose any imminent threat against Dulin. Hence, Batulan was not committing
any aggression when Dulin fatally stabbed him.
2. NO, there was no treachery present. Dulin and Batulan grappled for control of the weapon
Batulan had initially wielded against Dulin, who divested Batulan of it and ran with it into the
house of Danao, with Batulan in immediate pursuit. They continued to grapple for the weapon
inside the house of Danao, and it was at that point when Dulin stabbed Batulan several times.
Under the circumstances, treachery should not be appreciated in the killing of Batulan because
the stabbing by Dulin did not take Batulan by surprise due to his having been sufficiently
forewarned of Dulin’s impending assault, and being thus afforded the opportunity to defend
himself, or to escape, or even to recover control of the weapon from Dulin.
PEOPLE VS. MALICSE
GR NO. 190912, JANUARY 12, 2015
TOMAHWAK AXE, ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
Treachery
FACTS:
Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was outside the house of his sister Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita)
when all of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's son, Winston, throwing invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio
confronted Isabelita but she also cursed him, which prompted the former to slap the latter. On that
occasion, Elpidio was under the influence of alcohol.
The Barangay Chairman heard what transpired and went to the place where the commotion was taking
place in order to pacify those who were involved. Elpidio was eventually persuaded to go home where he
drank some coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went back to the house of Isabelita to offer reconciliation.
Upon reaching Isabelita's house, Elpidio saw the former's son, Titus Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law
Gary Fantastico (Gary) and asked the two where he can find their parents. Titus and Gary responded,
"putang ina mo, and kulit mo, lumayas ka, punyeta ka."
In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio kicked the door open and saw Isabelita's elder
son, Salvador Iguiron (Salvador) behind the door holding a rattan stick or arnis. Salvador hit Elpidio on
the right side of his head that forced the latter to bow his head but Salvador delivered a second blow that
hit Elpidio on the right eyebrow. Salvador attempted to hit Elpidio for the third time but the latter got hold
of the rattan stick and the two wrestled on the floor and grappled for the possession of the same rattan
stick. Then Titus ran towards the two and sprayed something on Elpidio's face. Not being able to free
himself from the clutches of Salvador and to extricate himself, Elpidio bit Salvador's head.
Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a tomahawk axe when the latter was about to go out of
the house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to take the tomahawk axe from Gary. Elpidio
walked away from Titus but Gary, still armed with the tomahawk axe and Salvador, with his arnis,
including Titus, chased him. Roland (Rolly) Villanueva, without any warning, hit Elpidio on the back of
his head with a lead pipe which caused the latter to fall on the ground. Elpidio begged his assailants to
stop, but to no avail. Salvador hit him countless times on his thighs, legs and knees using the rattan stick.
While he was simultaneously being beaten up by Salvador, Titus, Gary, Rolly, Nestor, Eugene and
Tommy, he tried to cover his face with his arm. Gary hit him with the tomahawk axe on his right leg,
between the knees and the ankle of his leg, which caused the fracture on his legs and knees. Rolly hit
Elpidio's head with a lead pipe, while Tommy hit him with a piece of wood on the back of his shoulder.
Thereafter, a certain "Mang Gil" tried to break them off but Titus and Gary shouted at him: " Huwag
makialam, away ng mag-anak ito" and the two continued to maul Elpidio. The people who witnessed
the incident shouted "maawa na kayo" but they only stopped battering him when a bystander fainted
because of the incident. Elpidio then pretended to be dead. It was then that concerned neighbors
approached him and rushed him to the emergency room of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
Attempted Murder was filed against Salvador Iguiron, Titus Malicse Iguiron, Saligan Malicse Iguiron,
Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballestero
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there was treachery present?
2. WON there was abuse of Superior Strength?
RULING:
[Link], there was no presence of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of
the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.
For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur:
(1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
From the facts proven by the prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second element of
treachery is wanting. The incident, which happened at the spur of the moment, negates the possibility that
the petitioners consciously adopted means to execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where
the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation
on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.
2. YES, there is abuse of superior strength in this case. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever
there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him
in the commission of the crime." "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not
per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the
relative strength of the aggressors and the victim." The evidence must establish that the assailants
purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. "To take
advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on
the age, size, and strength of the parties.
In the case at bar, the attack was a lopsided attack as the victim was unarmed, while his attackers were all
armed (rattan stick, tomahawk and lead pipe). And the victim was also drunk. This establishes the
element of abuse of superior strength.
PEOPLE VS. BOKINGCO
GR NO. 187536, AUGUST 10, 2011
Construction Worker
Treachery
FACTS:
The victim, Noli Pasion is the employer of the construction workers, Michael Bokingco and Reynante
Col. Vitalicio, one of the lessees in the aparttment owned by Pasion, heard a commotion and checked
Apartment No. 3 on what was happening. He peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
something on the floor.
Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly attacked him and a struggle ensued where Vitalicio was hit
several times. Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co-worker. Vitalicio
proceeded to his house and was told by his wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen of Apartment
No. 3. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No. 3 and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor. Col
was allegedly at the second floor of the house where he instructed Elsa, Pasion’s wife, to open the vault of
the pawnshop. Subsequently, Elsa saw Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay
na siya." Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco. Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3.
Thereat, she saw her husband, bathed in his own blood.
ISSUE:
WON the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime and abuse of
confidence properly appreciated to convict appellant of murder?
RULING:
NO, the aggravating circumstances were not proven by the prosecution.
Treachery
There was no proof of the manner in which the aggression was commenced. For treachery to be
appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him. Nobody witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness
Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time.
Evident Premeditation
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, it is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill
was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. In the instant case, no proof was
shown as to how and when the plan to kill was devised. Bokingco admitted in court that he only retaliated
when Pasion allegedly hit him in the head. Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he was treated
poorly by Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the attack. It was during the
preliminary investigation that Bokingco mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion. However,
Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel and hence, inadmissible
against him.
Nighttime
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is anchored on the presumption that
there was evident premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation has not been proved,
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be properly appreciated. There was no evidence to
show that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.
Abuse of confidence
Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case. Taking
into account that fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he enjoyed the trust and
confidence of Pasion. However, there was no showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS. TABARNERO
GR NO. 168169, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
Live-in Partner
Treachery
FACTS:
Gary, a 22-year-old construction worker at the time of his testimony in June 2001, testified that
he stayed in Ernesto’s house from 1997 to 1999, as he and Mary Jane were living together. Mary Jane is
the daughter of Teresita Acibar, the wife of Ernesto. However, Gary left the house shortly before the
October 23, 1999 incident because of a misunderstanding with Ernesto when the latter allegedly stopped
the planned marriage of Gary and Mary Jane, who was pregnant at that time.
On October 23, 1999, Gary was allegedly in his house in Longos, Malolos, Bulacan at around 11:40 p.m.
with his friend, Richard Ulilian; his father, co-appellant Alberto; his mother, Elvira; and his brother,
Jeffrey. Overcome with emotion over being separated from Mary Jane, Gary then went to Ernesto’s
house, but was not able to enter as no one went out of the house to let him in. He instead shouted his pleas
from the outside, asking Ernesto what he had done wrong that caused Ernesto to break him and Mary Jane
up, and voicing out several times that he loved Mary Jane and was ready to marry her. When Gary was
about to leave, the gate opened and Ernesto purportedly struck him with a lead pipe. Ernesto was aiming
at Gary’s head, but the latter blocked the blow with his hands, causing his left index finger to be broken.
Gary embraced Ernesto, but the latter strangled him. At that point, Gary felt that there was a bladed
weapon tucked at Ernestos back. Losing control of himself, Gary took the bladed weapon and stabbed
Ernesto, although he cannot recall how many times he did so.
According to Gary, Ernesto fell to the ground, and pleaded, saklolo, tulungan niyo po ako three times.
Gary was stunned, and did not notice his father, co-appellant Alberto, coming. Alberto asked Gary, anak,
ano ang nangyari? To which Gary responded nasaksak ko po yata si Ka Erning, referring to Ernesto.
Gary and Alberto fled, allegedly out of fear.
Gary denied that he and Alberto conspired to kill Ernesto. Gary claims that it was he and Ernesto who had
a fight, and that he had no choice but to stab Ernesto, who was going to kill him.
ISSUE:
1. WON there is treachery present?
RULING:
YES. 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. In
People v. Alvarado, the accused and his companions shouted to the victim: Lumabas ka kalbo, kung
matapang ka. When the victim went out of the house, the accuseds companions held the victims hands
while the accused stabbed him. Despite the yelling which should have warned the victim of a possible
attack, the mere fact that the accuseds companions held the hands of the victim while the accused stabbed
him was considered by this Court to constitute alevosia.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength would nevertheless qualify the killing to murder. Despite being
alleged in the Information, this circumstance was not considered in the trial court as the same is already
absorbed in treachery. The act of the accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were
holding him clearly shows the deliberate use of excessive force out of proportion to the
defense available to the person attacked.
PEOPLE VS. VILBAR
GR NO. 186541, FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Urinated on Table
Treachery
FACTS:
On May 5, 2000, 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at the public market, the accused, Vicente Vilbar,
without warning suddenly stabbed Guilbert Patricio with a knife after Guilbert tried to admonish him for
urinating in one of the table of their store. Because of the degree of injury, the victim sustained, he died
hours later. On July 31, 2000, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge against him.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Maria Liza, widow of the deceased, and
Pedro Luzon, an eye witness at the scene. Both were consistent with their accounts that it coincided with
the stabbing incident. Whereas the accused witness, Cerilo Pelos, testimony showed to be incoherent and
elusive in giving particular details of the crime. Thus, the trial court gave credibility to Maria Liza and
Pedro Luzon’s testimonies in positively identifying Vilbar and convicted him.
ISSUE:
WON treachery is present in this case?
RULING:
NO. Treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected.
While it appears that the attack upon the victim was sudden, the surrounding circumstances attending the
stabbing incident, that is, the open area, the presence of the victims’ families and the attending
eyewitnesses, works against treachery. If accused-appellant wanted to make certain that no risk would
come to him, he could have chosen another time and place to stab the victim. Yet, accused- appellant
nonchalantly stabbed the victim in a public market at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. In fact, the attack
appeared to have been impulsively done, a spur of the moment act in the heat of anger or extreme
annoyance. There are no indications that accused-appellant deliberately planned to stab the victim at said
time and place. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that accused-appellant, who at that time was
languishing in his alcoholic state, acted brashly and impetuously in suddenly stabbing the victim.
Treachery just cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE VS. MATIBAG
GR NO. 206381, MARCH 25, 2015
Unlicensed Fire-arm
Treachery
FACTS:
In the evening of March 27, 2005, Enrico Duhan who just came from a meeting with the other officers of
the homeowners’ association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along Iron Street in Brgy.
Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City when Matibag confronted Duhan, and asked, “ano bang
pinagsasasabi mo?” Duhan replied “wala,” and without warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting
Duhan on the left cheek and causing him to teeter backwards. Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot
Duhan, who fell face-first on the pavement. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him
several more times.
PO2 Tom Falejo, a member of the PNP, positively identified Matibag and stated on record that he
arrested the latter on the night of March 27, 2005.
Defense: Matibag alleged that on said date, he was at the despedida party of his neighbor when Duhan
arrived together with the other officers of the homeowners’ association. Wanting to settle a previous
misunderstanding, Matibag approached Duhan and extended his hand as a gesture of reconciliation.
However, Duhan pushed it away and said, “putang ina mo, ang yabang mo,” thereby provoking
Matibag to punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull something from his waist and fearing that it
was a gun and Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately drew his own gun, shot Duhan, and
hurriedly left the place.
The RTC ruled that the crime was murder. CA affirmed the lower court’s decision in toto.
ISSUE:
WON the CA upheld the proper conviction?
RULING:
NO. Under Article 14 of the RPC, 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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, who was armed with a gun,
confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest. Although the attack
was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to
defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed. Matibag also failed to prove that a heated exchange of
words preceded the incident so as to forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from his assailant.
The deliberateness of Matibag’s act is further evinced from his disposition preceding the moment of
execution. As the RTC aptly pointed out, Matibag was ready and destined to effect such dastardly act,
considering that he had an axe to grind when he confronted Duhan, coupled with the fact that he did so,
armed with a loaded handgun. Based on these findings, the Court concludes that treachery was correctly
appreciated.
Moreover, as the RTC and CA held, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm,
which was duly alleged in the Information, should be appreciated in the imposition of penalty.
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294, treats the unauthorized
use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating
circumstance. Therefore, when Matibag killed Duhan with his firearm, the use thereof was unauthorized
under the purview of RA 8294 and is equally appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. As a
result, the imposition of the maximum penalty of death, which is reduced to reclusion perpetua in light
of RA 9346, stands proper.
To this, the Court adds that Matibag is not eligible for parole.
PEOPLE VS. FELICIANO JR.
GR NO. 196735, MAY 5, 2014
Fraternity Attack
Treachery
FACTS:
On December 8, 1994, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity (SRF) who were
eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the UP Diliman, were attacked by
several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required
hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina died on Dec 10.
Dr. Rolando Victoria, a medico-legal officer of the NBI, found that Venturina had "several contusions
located at the back of the upper left arm and hematoma on the back of both hands," "two (2) lacerated
wounds at the back of the head, generalized hematoma on the skull," "several fractures on the head," and
"inter-cranial hemorrhage." According to Dr. Victoria, the injuries could have been caused by a hard,
blunt object; he concluded that Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.
An information for murder was filed against 12 members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, namely,
Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,
Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag,
Gilbert Merle Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. with the RTC QC, Branch 219.
Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted murder of SRF members Cesar
Mangrobang, Jr., Cristobal Gaston, Jr., and Leandro Lachica, and the frustrated murder of SRF members
Mervin Natalicio and Amel Fortes. Only 11 of the accused stood trial since one of the accused, Benedict
Guerrero, remained at large. The informations alleged conspiracy.
The accused, in their defense, presented their respective alibis. For the accused Feliciano, his mother
testified that he was in Pampanga on Dec 8, 1994.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON accused-appellants' constitutional rights were violated when the information against
them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of masks despite the prosecution
presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell off; and
2. WON the CA correctly ruled that there was no treachery involved.
RULING:
1. NO. It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated
in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will
not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the
aggravating circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in
order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like
nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he
carries out his crimes.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused
were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an
aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating
circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The
inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused
that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to conceal their
identity.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were not wearing masks is
also not violative of their right to be informed of their offenses. The information charges
conspiracy among the accused. This would mean all the accused had been one in their plan to
conceal their identity even if there was evidence later on to prove that some of them might not
have done so.
2. NO. The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they
would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The
victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats.
In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible
for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less than a
minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them
until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or
even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case. As correctly
found by the RTC and CA, the offense committed against Dennis Venturina was committed by a
group that took advantage of its superior strength and with the aid of armed men. But
CA erred in ruling out treachery.
PEOPLE VS. NAELGA
GR NO. 1171018, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
Drug Pusher
Instigation vs. Entrapment
FACTS:
Naelga was apprehended for selling shabu through a buy-bust operation. PO2 Sembran, posing as
a buyer, approached Naelga and asked if he was a security guard and what he could suggest so that he
could keep himself awake and not be caught sleeping in his post. Naelga passed his finger under his nose
as if sniffing something and PO2 asked what he meant, Naelga said bato or shabu. PO2 Sembran said he
was willing to try it and asked to buy P500 worth. He initially gave P400 in marked bills which Naelga
used to get the shabu he was about to sell PO2 Sembran. Naelga was then apprehended during their
exchange of the shabu and the P100 balance. Naelgainitially denied the accusation claiming that he was
selling CDs when PO2 Sembran approached him asking for shabu. Naelga then claimed that he was not
certain that what he bought for PO2 Sembran was shabu but that he gave it to PO2 and then the latter
handcuffed him.
ISSUE:
WON the police officers regularly performed their function upon the apprehension of Naelga?
RULING:
NO. The general rule is that it is no defense that a decoy solicitation was used to facilitate the
entrapment. Mere deception by the detective will not shield the defendant if the offense was
committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the detective. In this case, the law
enforcers already received reports that accused was engaged in illegal drug trade. There is no instigation
as PO2 Sembran merely pretended to buy. In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation,
the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself
becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction; in instigation, the defendant
would have to be acquitted.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved.
