Danivie G. Suminguit People vs Oloverio G.R. No. 211159 March 18, 2015 Facts: According to the prosecution, on October 2, 2003, at around 3:00 p.m., Rudipico Pogay and Dominador Panday saw Rodulfo Gulane walking about five meters away from them with Oloverio trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s right shoulder and hacked him on the chest and extremities with a bolountil Gulane collapsed on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly took Gulane’s money from his pocket. In his defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of the incident, Gulane had been accusing him of having an incestuous relationship with his mother. He allegedly kept his cool and told Gulane to go home, but the latter continued to mock him by asking in a loud voice, "How many times did you have sexual intercourse with your mother?" He allegedly asked Gulane to go home again but the latter angrily replied, "Who are you to tell me to go home?" He admitted that he stabbed Gulane because he could no longer bear the insulting remarks against him. Issue: Whether or not passion and obfuscation is present in this case. Ruling: Yes, the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in this case. To be able to successfully plead the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the accused must be able to prove the following elements: 1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and 2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. Accused-appellant admitted that he stabbed Gulane but alleged that they had been fighting. He alleged that Gulane had been hurling insults at him which provoked him to react; in effect, he alleged that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was present in this case. Both victim and accusedappellant lived in the small locality of Palompon, Leyte. As with any small town, it was a place where a person’s degrading remarks against another could be made the measure of the latter’s character. Gulane’s insults would have been taken into serious consideration by the town’s residents because of his wealth and stature in the community. In view of these considerations, the SC found that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in this case. Danivie G. Suminguit Fortuna vs PP GR No. 135784 Dec. 15, 2000 FACTS: Diosdada and her brother Mario Montecillo were standing at the corner of Mabini and harrison Streets on July 21, 1992 at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon waiting for a ride home when a mobile patrol car of the Western police District with three policemen on board stopped in front of them. One of the policemen went out of the car and frisked Mario. He took Mario’s belt pointed to a supposedly blunt object in its buckle and uttered the word “evidence”. Then he instructed Mario to board the car. Diosdada also followed and sat beside Mario. While cruising along Roxas, Mario was interrogated by the driver why he was carrying a “deadly weapon” to which Mario answered “for self-defense since he was a polio victim”. The police continued to interrogate him and even told him that he would be brought to the Bicutan police station where he would also be interrogated by the police and be mauled by other prisoners and heckled by the press. The police officers asked the Montecillos to pay a bailbond of P12, 000.00 and asked them how much money do they have. Mario gave his P1, 000.00 to Diosdada which the latter placed inside her wallet. The car then stopped and Diosdada was told to get off and go behind the car with the driver wherein she was asked to give her wallet to driver. The driver rummage through her wallet and counted the money. The driver took out P1, 500 from the P5, 000 in the said wallet and instructed Diosdada to tell the other policemen in the car that she only have P3,500 inside her wallet. Fearing for their safety, Diosdada followed the driver’s instructions and sat beside his brother inside the car. She was then asked to take out the all the money inside her wallet and to place it inside the car’s console box. ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance under Art. 14, par. 1 or the “abuse ofpublic position” should be appreciated. RULING: YES. The aggravating circumstance of “abuse of public position” is present in the case at bar. The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on account of their authority that the Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and would be brought to the police station for investigation unless they gave them what they demanded. Danivie G. Suminguit People vs. Madrid GR No. L-3023 January 3, 1951 Facts: On February 1947, Yosua, a Chinese merchant in Manila, together with Ponciano Felicisimo, who drove, and two laborers by the name Demetrio Sinio and Feliciano Guyapo, made a trip to Isabela in an International truck to buy palay. All four went missing and unheard for. Lina Cayetano, Young’s business partner and co-owner in the truck, reported their disappearance to the authorities. The missing truck, or most of what remained of it was found in Cabanatuan, in the possession of one Valentin Magno. Pursuant to an informant’s tip, the authorities called for Paciano Madrid for questioning. Madrid was a driver by profession and a special agent of the military police. He went to Isabela, in his own jeep and ran into Soriano, Lacalinao and Manuel, his townmates, and they asked for aride in his jeep. On the way to Nueva Ecija, they stopped when they came upon on overturned bulldozer. Soon after, Young’s truck appeared and Madrid signaled the driver to halt. Madrid requested the driver to pull the bulldozer out of the way and the driver replied that he had no chain. After that, Vicente de los Santos boarded the truck, drew his revolver and hauled down the Chinese, while Macario did the same with the two laborers. He (accused) was also carrying a pistol as special agent of the military police. Vicente put the Chinese in the jeep and Macario did likewise to the two laborers upon Madrid’s orders. Madrid and Vicente agreed to kill the four men. The first one that Madrid killed was the Chinaman, shooting him in the forehead and then killed the other two laborers. Vicente, on the other hand, killed the other one then drove the truck to Cabanatuan where he sold the rice for P2,300 and gave the truck to Valentin Magno. Appellant was found guilty of a complex crime of robbery with homicide and three separate crimes of homicide. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s acts constitute a complex crime of robbery with quadruple homicide and not, as the trial court held, four separate crimes. Issue: WON Madrid’s being a law officer is an aggravating circumstance. Ruling: Yes. He took advantage of his position. He committed the crime with the aid of a gun which he had been authorized to carry as a peace officer; and he succeeded in going through the check point with the stolen truck and its cargo unsuspected of misdeed, thanks to his official position. Danivie G. Suminguit People vs. Bringcula GR No. 228400 January 24, 2018 Facts: On the night of May 2, 2011, private complainant AAA was sleeping in her house when she was awakened by a man wearing a mask who touched her shoulder and poked a firearm at her neck. The man told her that it was a robbery and that she should keep quiet or else he would kill her. She was able to recognize the voice of the man to be that of appellant Bringcula. Then, she was ordered to lie face down and was hogtied using a shoelace. The appellant took AAA's two bracelets and wedding ring, and asked her where her money was. AAA pointed at her bag where she placed her money which the appellant also took. Appellant, thereafter, made AAA lie on her back and pulled her pajama and underwear. He also removed his own clothing including his mask. Appellant proceeded to lick AAA's vagina, kissed her neck, laid on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA was unable to cry for help because appellant threatened to kill her if she does. After satisfying his lust, appellant dressed up and took AAA's necklace and two cellular phones. When appellant left, AAA awakened her niece and told her to shout for help but when some neighbors arrived, she opted not to immediately disclose the culprit’s identity. Later in the morning, AAA went to the police station to report the incident and submitted herself for a medical examination. Appellant denied the allegations and interposed alibi as a defense. The RTC found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape penalized under Art. 294 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be appreciated. ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. HELD: YES. In this particular case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victim without provocation on her part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime maybe committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. Danivie G. Suminguit People vs. Rubia GR No. 28792 October 6, 1928 Facts: On the night of September 12, 1927, the four defendants, who then lived at Canlong, Municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, went in a good-sized boat to Malindong Island, in Lagonoy Bay, of the said municipality, where Pedro Suino lived. The following morning, they went in search of Pedro Suino in this house. As Suino was still asleep, they went away intending to return later, as, in fact, they did, and Floro Rubia asked Pedro Suino if he was going fishing, and having received an affirmative reply, they invited him to go with them, since they, too, were going fishing. At about noon they left for the sea, Pedro going alone in his banca, while the four went in theirs. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, one Pantaleon Cordial, of the same barrio, while fishing, saw a banca a short distance away, but without any occupant. Fearing that the owner of the boat had met with an accident, he returned home in haste and told Pedro's wife of what he had seen. The woman begged two men to go and see what had happened to her husband, and they found Pedro Suino dead in his banca, which was anchored with scratches around his neck, on the left side of his chest and on his left arm. The men whom Suino's wife had called upon, Geronimo Lopez and Graciano Castor by name, rowed Suino's banca to the shore. Undoubtedly Pedro Suino was the victim of a criminal assault. The defense alleges that Pedro Suino died of an electrical shock. But the body of the deceased was examined by a health officer who performed an autopsy on October 11, and he positively affirmed that death was not produced by an electrical shock, but by strangling or some other violent means. Not a single trace of an electrical discharge has been found either in the banca or on the deceased's body. Pedro and Juan Delloro, brothers, substantially testified that while they went about in their banca at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon in question, they saw Pedro Suino in the defendants' boat, while Suino's banca lay alongside of it; that Floro Rubia struck Suino in the chest with an oar and Macario Teoxon strangled him, after which they lay in the bottom of their boat, and remained out of sight because at that time it was thundering and raining hard; and that the said witnesses were about 20 brazas from the defendants' banca but they were afraid to go near it. Speaking of these witnesses, the trial judge says that notwithstanding the defendants' denial, they are worthier of belief, because, as they lived in different barrios they could not have had any motive for testifying falsely against the accused in a crime so grave as that charged in the information. It is true that there are some contradictions in their testimony, and at first Julian Delloro denied that he wrote the letter to the chief of police denouncing the crime, which he admitted later on, when told that his bother Juan accused him of the crime; nevertheless, the court was satisfied that in substance, they told the truth. Issue: Was there an aggravating circumstance in the case? Ruling: The aggravating circumstances of craft and abuse of superior strength cannot be considered in this case; the first, because the mere invitation extended by the defendants to the deceased to venture out to sea with them, but itself alone does not constitute a deceitful means leading to the commission of the criminal act; and the second, that is, abuse of superior strength, because there is no proof that the two accused simultaneously asssaulted the deceased with their oars, with the object of weakening whatever defense the assaulted party might put up. And there being no extenuating circumstance present, the penalty must be imposed upon the defendants in its maximum degree, that is, seventeen years, four months, and one day, to twenty years' reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law. As the guilt of defendants Eduardo Rubia and Juan Rubia has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be, and as they are hereby, acquitted.