People v. Sanchez

2 — Duty of Arresting Officer

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: People v. SapalPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: People v. GiveraNext case→

Case DigestWeek 7 - Rule 113 - Arrest

People v. Sanchez

G.R. No. 188610 · June 29, 2010 · First Division

2 — Duty of Arresting Officer

Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Albert Sanchez y Galera

Core Doctrine

Treachery in the killing of a child of tender years may be appreciated even without a specific showing of the manner of the assault, given the child's inherent defencelessness; but it must otherwise be shown to have been deliberately adopted, and evident premeditation requires proof of the time the offender determined to commit the crime, an overt act showing he clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval to reflect. This case is only incidental to the duty of an arresting officer: nothing in it challenges the legality of the hot-pursuit arrest that followed the stabbings.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

Rule 113, Arrest — 2. Duty of Arresting Officer Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_188610_2010.html

⚡ Topic Fidelity flag — read before using for recitation on "Duty of Arresting Officer"

This Decision does not discuss, litigate, or rule upon any duty of an arresting officer under Rule 113. The arrest is mentioned exactly once, as background narrative: a responding police officer chased and arrested the accused-appellant after he was seen fleeing the crime scene holding a knife. No party assigned error regarding the arrest, and the Court's entire analysis is devoted to whether treachery and evident premeditation qualified the killings and woundings as murder and frustrated murder. This digest classifies the case INCIDENTAL to the assigned Subtopic, consistent with the Topic Fidelity Rule, and does not manufacture an arrest-duty holding the Decision does not contain.

Facts

On the night of 26 June 2006, Albert Sanchez y Galera, a former houseboy of the De Leon family of Dela Paz St., Marikina City, entered their home while the parents were out, told ten-year-old John Ray that his father would give him money, and went upstairs. On the parents' return he asked for money, was given ₱100.00, and left with a hostile expression.
Later that night the couple's son Jufer told them Sanchez had pointed a knife at him and threatened to kill him in the comfort room. The threat was reported the night before and nothing happened.
At around 5:00 a.m. Sanchez surreptitiously re-entered the house. Jelyn Mae, sent to wake Jufer, was seized from behind, had a knife pointed at her neck and was stabbed, managing to plead for her life.
Jeane, alerted by the commotion, found Sanchez holding a bloodied knife over Jufer, and was herself stabbed while trying to aid her husband. Jufer, before losing consciousness, identified his attacker: "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako."
Edgar, arriving to help, was repeatedly stabbed, his intestines spilling from the wounds, before Sanchez fled.
At about 6:35 a.m. PO1 Reynaldo Candelaria, responding to a radio call, arrived; John Ray identified the assailant; on opening the gate Candelaria saw Sanchez running toward the back of the house holding a knife and, after a chase and with help from nearby residents, arrested him. This is the only mention of the arrest anywhere in the Decision.
Jufer and Edgar died — "Stab wounds, trunk." Jeane and Jelyn were hospitalised for multiple stab wounds.
Four Informations were filed in the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272 (Crim. Case Nos. 06-8245-MK to 06-8248-MK) — two for Murder, two for Frustrated Murder, each alleging treachery and evident premeditation. He pleaded not guilty, and with his conformity the defence formally waived presenting any evidence at all.
On 23 July 2007 the RTC convicted him on all four counts; on 27 February 2009 the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification of damages. His sole assigned error, throughout, was that treachery and evident premeditation were unproved.
On 29 June 2010 the First Division, through Justice Velasco, Jr., denied the appeal, modifying only the civil damages.

Issue

This case is INCIDENTAL to the assigned subtopic. No arrest-duty question is raised, argued or decided anywhere in the Decision — no challenge to the warrantless, hot-pursuit-type arrest, no delay-in-delivery issue, and no custodial-investigation issue (unsurprisingly, the defence having presented no evidence at all, and no statement having been taken). No main issue is manufactured here.

The controlling issue. Were the killings of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon and the woundings of Jeane and Jelyn Mae attended by treachery, by evident premeditation, or by both, so as to qualify them as Murder and Frustrated Murder rather than Homicide and Frustrated Homicide?

Ancillary issue. The proper measure of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, given R.A. No. 9346 and Article 63.

Ruling

AS TO THE SUBTOPIC — NOT APPLICABLE. The arrest is recited once as uncontested background and never revisited; there is no holding to state.

TREACHERY — YES as to Jufer, Jelyn and Edgar; NO as to Jeane. On Jufer, "an adult person attacks and causes the death of a child of tender years" is treacherous even without a shown manner of assault, given the child's inherent inability to defend himself. On Jelyn, the surprise attack from behind, before she could react, satisfied both requisites. On Edgar, the sudden knife attack as he ascended the stairs, unaware of Sanchez's armed presence, was likewise treacherous. But as to Jeane: "[T]reachery cannot be appreciated against appellant… Jeane was sufficiently forewarned of the aggression against her… An attack from appellant was then something not unexpected" — though abuse of superior strength applied instead, a man with a deadly weapon against an unarmed woman.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION — YES on all four counts. "[T]he interplay of the following circumstances indicate the presence of evident premeditation" — the prior night's threat, the knife-brandishing witnessed by two children, the multiple blood-stained knives and gloves recovered, and the covert, prepared method of entry the next morning.

Ancillary issue. DAMAGES MODIFIED. ₱75,000.00 civil indemnity affirmed, moral damages increased to ₱75,000.00, and ₱30,000.00 exemplary damages awarded per murder count.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02902 finding Albert Sanchez y Galera guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and sentencing him to serve prison terms therein defined without parole is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon the increased amount of PhP 75,000 as moral damages and the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06-8246-MK. No pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Treachery was assessed victim by victim, applying the two-condition test — means ensuring the offender's safety from retaliation, and deliberate choice of that means — and reaching a different result for Jeane than for the other three.
That divergence is the Decision's own lesson: treachery must be evaluated separately for each victim even within one continuous criminal episode.
Evident premeditation was built from circumstantial evidence satisfying all three elements — the time of the resolve, an overt act showing adherence to it, and a sufficient interval for reflection — spanning the night before through the morning of the attack.
Jufer's identification was received as a dying declaration, made under consciousness of impending death, and given "utmost credence."
And no arrest issue was ever reached because none was raised — unsurprising given the defence's strategic choice to present no evidence and to confine the appeal to a single narrow qualifying-circumstance argument.

Doctrine

The doctrines this case actually stands for are substantive, not procedural. Treachery in the killing of a child of tender years may be appreciated even without a specific showing of the manner of assault, given the child's inherent defencelessness. Treachery must be present at the inception of the attack — a victim forewarned and not taken completely by surprise cannot support the finding, even where another aggravating circumstance such as abuse of superior strength applies instead. Evident premeditation requires (a) the time the offender resolved to commit the crime, (b) an overt act manifesting adherence, and (c) a sufficient lapse for reflection — provable by circumstantial evidence. And a dying declaration identifying one's assailant, made under consciousness of impending death, is admissible under Section 37, Rule 130 and accorded "utmost credence." These are qualified-killing and circumstance rules, not arrest rules.

Limits. Do not cite this case for any arresting-officer duty. The apprehension — a hot-pursuit-type catch of a fleeing, knife-wielding suspect moments after the crime — is uncontested background, never a legal issue in the pleadings or the Decision, and reading a Rule 113 holding into it would manufacture what the text does not contain. If the recitation calls for the arresting officer's duties, go to People v. Sapal and People v. Albior, which actually decide them; this case belongs to substantive criminal law. As to what it does hold, note the Court's own limitation — treachery does not attach to every victim of one episode merely because it attached to others, and Jeane's case is the Decision's illustration of that.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: INCIDENTAL. Albert Sanchez y Galera, a former houseboy of the De Leon family, forced entry into their Marikina City home before dawn and, over the course of a sustained knife attack, fatally stabbed eleven-year-old Jufer James De Leon and his father Edgar De Leon, and inflicted near-fatal stab wounds on Jufer's mother Jeane and sister Jelyn Mae, before fleeing when a responding police officer, PO1 Reynaldo Candelaria, gave chase and — with the help of nearby residents — apprehended him still holding a knife. Convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each murder count, Sanchez's sole assignment of error on appeal was that treachery and evident premeditation had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such that the killings and woundings should be downgraded to homicide and frustrated homicide. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying only the civil damages awarded. The arrest itself — its manner, its warrant status (apparently none), and any duties owed to Sanchez by the arresting officer — is not a live issue anywhere in the Decision; it is recited once, as an uncontested narrative fact, and never revisited. The Decision's actual and only doctrinal content concerns the substantive-law elements of treachery and evident premeditation under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a matter outside Rule 113 entirely.

Facts

On 26 June 2006, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., Albert Sanchez — a former houseboy of the De Leon family, who lived at Dela Paz St., Marikina City — entered the De Leon home while the parents (Edgar and Jeane) were out, told ten-year-old John Ray De Leon that his father would give him money, and proceeded upstairs; when confronted upon the parents' return, he asked for money, was given P100.00, and left with a hostile expression. Later that night, the couple's son Jufer confided that Sanchez had pointed a knife at him and threatened to kill him while in the comfort room.
Very early on 27 January 2006 (the year in the Decision's own body narrative shifts from "2006" for the night-before events to specific dates that are internally described as "January 2006" in the criminal Informations, apparently a typographical inconsistency in the source between "June" and "January" for the same continuous overnight episode; this digest reports the dates as they appear in the Decision without attempting to resolve the discrepancy), at around 5:00 a.m., Sanchez surreptitiously re-entered the De Leon home. Jelyn Mae, sent to wake her brother Jufer, was seized from behind, had a knife pointed at her neck, and was stabbed; she managed to plead for her life. Jeane, alerted by a commotion, found Sanchez holding a bloodied knife over Jufer, was herself later stabbed by Sanchez while trying to aid her husband, and Jufer, before losing consciousness, identified his attacker to his mother: "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako." Edgar, arriving to help, was likewise repeatedly stabbed by Sanchez, his intestines spilling out from the wounds, before Sanchez fled the house.
At around 6:35 a.m., PO1 Reynaldo Candelaria, responding to a radio call reporting a stabbing incident, proceeded to the De Leon residence. John Ray met and identified the assailant to him. On opening the gate, Candelaria saw Sanchez running toward the back of the house holding a knife and, after a chase, with the help of nearby residents, caught up with and arrested Sanchez. (This is the sole mention of the arrest anywhere in the Decision.)
Jufer and Edgar died of their stab wounds; the cause of death for both was recorded as "Stab wounds, trunk." Jeane and Jelyn were hospitalized and treated for multiple stab wounds.
Four Informations were filed against Sanchez in the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272 (Crim. Case Nos. 06-8245-MK to 06-8248-MK): two for Murder (Jufer and Edgar) and two for Frustrated Murder (Jeane and Jelyn), each alleging treachery and evident premeditation. Sanchez, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to all charges.
At trial, the prosecution presented the surviving family members and the medico-legal officer; the defense, with Sanchez's conformity, formally waived its right to present any evidence.
On 23 July 2007, the RTC rendered judgment finding Sanchez guilty on all four counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each murder count and indeterminate prison terms for each frustrated murder count, plus civil indemnity, actual damages, and moral damages.
Sanchez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02902), raising the sole assignment of error that the RTC erred in finding treachery and evident premeditation proven beyond reasonable doubt. On 27 February 2009, the CA affirmed with modification (increasing civil indemnity, reducing moral damages, in the two murder counts).
Sanchez filed a timely Notice of Appeal; the Supreme Court accepted the appeal by Resolution of 16 September 2009, and the parties opted to submit the case on the existing record.
The Supreme Court (Velasco, Jr., J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest on 29 June 2010, denying the appeal, affirming the conviction, and modifying only the civil damages.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Accused-Appellant (Albert Sanchez y Galera).

Sanchez's sole argument — reiterating what he had raised before the CA — was that the prosecution failed to prove, with moral certainty, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation; he did not deny responsibility for the killings and woundings themselves, but sought a downgrading of his liability to homicide (two counts) and frustrated homicide (two counts), which do not carry these qualifying circumstances. No argument concerning the legality or manner of his arrest was raised at any stage.

B. Plaintiff-Appellee (People of the Philippines).

The People maintained that both qualifying circumstances were amply proven: treachery, through the sudden, unexpected nature of the attacks on the unsuspecting victims (a child, a mother, a daughter, and a father each caught off guard); and evident premeditation, through Sanchez's threat the night before, his return the next morning armed and prepared, and physical evidence (multiple blood-stained knives and gloves) found at the scene.

C. Common Ground.

The parties did not dispute the fact or manner of the killings and woundings, Sanchez's identity as the assailant (positively and, as to Jufer, additionally via dying declaration), or the circumstances of his arrest by PO1 Candelaria; the entire dispute was confined to whether treachery and/or evident premeditation attended the several killings and assaults.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

This case is classified INCIDENTAL to "Duty of Arresting Officer." The Decision contains no issue, argument, or holding concerning any duty owed by PO1 Candelaria (or any other officer) in arresting Sanchez — no challenge to the legality of the warrantless, hot-pursuit-type arrest, no argument regarding delay in delivering Sanchez to proper authorities, and no custodial-investigation issue (consistent with the defense having presented no evidence at trial at all, including no confession or statement obtained from Sanchez). No artificial MAIN ISSUE is forced here. The closest, and actual, controlling issue in the Decision — addressed instead as the Secondary Issue below — is whether treachery and evident premeditation were proven to qualify the killings and assaults as murder and frustrated murder.

B. Secondary Issues.

Were the killings of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon, and the near-fatal woundings of Jeane and Jelyn Mae De Leon, attended by treachery, by evident premeditation, or by both, so as to qualify the offenses as Murder and Frustrated Murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, rather than Homicide and Frustrated Homicide?

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

The proper measure of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count, in light of Republic Act No. 9346's prohibition on the death penalty and its effect on the otherwise-applicable penalty computation under Article 63, Revised Penal Code.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — NOT APPLICABLE. As explained above, the Decision does not present or resolve any "Duty of Arresting Officer" question; there is accordingly no categorical answer to render on the assigned Topic/Subtopic beyond the classification itself: INCIDENTAL — the arrest is mentioned but not load-bearing to the disposition.

SECONDARY ISSUE — YES as to TREACHERY for the killing of Jufer and the wounding of Jelyn and, separately, for the killing of Edgar; NO as to treachery for the wounding of Jeane. YES as to EVIDENT PREMEDITATION for all four counts. On Jufer: "circumstances do obtain to justify the finding of treachery in the killing of Jufer... an adult person attacks and causes the death of a child of tender years" is treacherous even without a shown manner of assault, given the child's inherent inability to defend himself. On Jelyn: the surprise attack from behind, before she could react, satisfied treachery's twin requisites. On Edgar: the sudden knife attack as he ascended the stairs, unaware of Sanchez's armed presence, was likewise treacherous. On Jeane, however: "[T]reachery cannot be appreciated against appellant... Jeane was sufficiently forewarned of the aggression against her... An attack from appellant was then something not unexpected" — though the Court noted the separate aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength (a man with a deadly weapon against an unarmed woman) was present instead. On evident premeditation, for all counts: "the interplay of the following circumstances indicate the presence of evident premeditation" — the prior night's threat, the knife-brandishing witnessed by two children, the multiple blood-stained knives and gloves recovered, and Sanchez's own covert, prepared method of entry the following morning.

ANCILLARY ISSUE — Damages modified. Civil indemnity of P75,000.00 per murder count was affirmed; moral damages were increased to P75,000.00 per murder count (to conform to prevailing jurisprudence for capital-adjacent crimes where the penalty, absent R.A. No. 9346, would have been death); and exemplary damages of P30,000.00 per murder count were additionally awarded given the presence of an aggravating circumstance.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02902 finding Albert Sanchez y Galera guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and sentencing him to serve prison terms therein defined without parole is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon the increased amount of PhP 75,000 as moral damages and the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06-8246-MK. No pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

(Presented for completeness given the Materiality Rule, notwithstanding the INCIDENTAL classification; none of the following bears on Rule 113.)

The Court applied the two-condition test for treachery — means/method ensuring the offender's safety from retaliation, and deliberate choice of that means — separately to each victim, reaching different results for Jeane (no treachery, having been forewarned) than for the other three victims (treachery present), illustrating that treachery must be assessed victim-by-victim even within a single continuous criminal episode.
For evident premeditation, the Court applied the three-element test (time of the resolve to commit the crime; an overt act showing adherence to that resolve; a sufficient interval for reflection) and found all three satisfied through a chain of circumstantial evidence spanning the night before the attack (the threat, the P100.00 exchange, Sanchez's hostile demeanor) through the morning of the attack itself (covert entry, multiple weapons brought or found at the scene).
Because no arrest-related issue was ever raised by the defense — which is unsurprising given the defense's own strategic choice to present no evidence and to confine its appeal to a single, narrow qualifying-circumstance argument — the Court had no occasion to discuss, let alone rule on, any Rule 113 duty.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

(Substantive criminal law doctrines, not Rule 113 — included per the Materiality Rule to explain what this Decision actually stands for, since it is not properly cited for an arrest-duty proposition.)

Treachery in the killing of a child of tender years may be appreciated even without a specific showing of the manner of assault, given the child's inherent defenselessness.
Treachery must be shown to be present at the inception of the attack; a victim who has been forewarned and is not taken completely by surprise cannot support a treachery finding, even if an aggravating circumstance (such as abuse of superior strength) may still apply.
Evident premeditation requires proof of (a) the time the offender resolved to commit the crime, (b) an overt act manifesting adherence to that resolve, and (c) a sufficient lapse of time for reflection, provable by circumstantial evidence.
A dying declaration identifying one's assailant, made under consciousness of impending death, is admissible under Section 37, Rule 130 and is accorded the "utmost credence."

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

None applicable to the assigned Topic/Subtopic, for the reasons stated in the classification. As to the substantive doctrines actually laid down, the Court is explicit that treachery does not automatically attach to every victim of a single criminal episode merely because it attached to others — Jeane's case is the Decision's own illustration of that limitation.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: INCIDENTAL.

People v. Sanchez (2010) does not apply, distinguish, extend, or reject any doctrine concerning the duty of an arresting officer.
The arrest of Sanchez — a hot-pursuit-type apprehension of a fleeing, knife-wielding suspect moments after the crime — is recited as an uncontested background fact and never becomes a legal issue anywhere in the pleadings or the Decision.
Digesting this case as though it "held" something about Rule 113 would manufacture a connection the Decision does not support; the honest and accurate report, consistent with the Topic Fidelity Rule, is that this case belongs to substantive criminal law (Article 248's qualifying circumstances) and only incidentally, in passing narrative, touches the assigned Subtopic.

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision was concurred in by Corona, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court

Arrest without warrant; when lawful

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 113 (Arrest)

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

Read this case for the fact pattern, not for a holding. The arrest is recited once and never litigated.

"(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances …"

PO1 Candelaria responded, gave chase, and — with nearby residents — apprehended Sanchez still holding the knife. Sanchez's sole assignment of error was about treachery and evident premeditation; the manner of the arrest, its warrant status, and any duty owed to him were never raised.

Held against the elements anyway, the facts are as clean as this section gets: an immediate pursuit from the scene, a suspect fleeing, the weapon still in his hand. Both paragraphs are satisfied several times over, which is presumably why nobody argued about it.

Take the contrast with Posadas and Rolito Go: the doctrine only becomes difficult when time has passed and the officer's knowledge is someone else's.

Special Law

Article 248, Revised Penal Code

Murder

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Why it is cited here

The Decision's actual doctrinal content.

"Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder … if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity … 5. With evident premeditation."

The qualifying circumstance is what separates murder from homicide, and frustrated murder from frustrated homicide. Sanchez's entire appeal was that neither had been proved, and that the four convictions should be downgraded accordingly.

The Court affirmed, modifying only the civil damages. Note that only one qualifying circumstance is needed; a second, if proved, is merely generic aggravating.

Special Law

Article 14, Revised Penal Code

Aggravating circumstances

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.

6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.

16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

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.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

CHAPTER FIVE

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Why it is cited here

What had to be proved for each circumstance.

"16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). 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."

"13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation."

Treachery has two elements: a mode of attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and that mode deliberately adopted. An eleven-year-old victim and a pre-dawn forced entry make the first plain; the second is what the accused contested.

Evident premeditation needs the harder showing: the time the offender determined to commit the crime, an overt act showing he clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval between the two to allow reflection.

Related notes:

Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila, Soria v. Desierto, People v. Albior, and People v. Sapal — the batch's genuinely DIRECT "Duty of Arresting Officer" cases, contrastable with this INCIDENTAL entry.
Article 248, Revised Penal Code — murder; treachery; evident premeditation (the provision this Decision actually construes).

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_188610_2010.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Arrest without warrant; when lawful

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 113 (Arrest)

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

Why it is cited here

Read this case for the fact pattern, not for a holding. The arrest is recited once and never litigated.

Take the contrast with Posadas and Rolito Go: the doctrine only becomes difficult when time has passed and the officer's knowledge is someone else's.

Full entry below ↓

Article 248, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

Murder

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Why it is cited here

The Decision's actual doctrinal content.

The Court affirmed, modifying only the civil damages. Note that only one qualifying circumstance is needed; a second, if proved, is merely generic aggravating.

Full entry below ↓

Article 14, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

Aggravating circumstances

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.

16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

CHAPTER FIVE

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Why it is cited here

What had to be proved for each circumstance.

"13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation."

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

Rule 113, Arrest — 2. Duty of Arresting Officer Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_188610_2010.html

⚡ Topic Fidelity flag — read before using for recitation on "Duty of Arresting Officer"

Facts

On the night of 26 June 2006, Albert Sanchez y Galera, a former houseboy of the De Leon family of Dela Paz St., Marikina City, entered their home while the parents were out, told ten-year-old John Ray that his father would give him money, and went upstairs. On the parents' return he asked for money, was given ₱100.00, and left with a hostile expression.
Later that night the couple's son Jufer told them Sanchez had pointed a knife at him and threatened to kill him in the comfort room. The threat was reported the night before and nothing happened.
At around 5:00 a.m. Sanchez surreptitiously re-entered the house. Jelyn Mae, sent to wake Jufer, was seized from behind, had a knife pointed at her neck and was stabbed, managing to plead for her life.
Jeane, alerted by the commotion, found Sanchez holding a bloodied knife over Jufer, and was herself stabbed while trying to aid her husband. Jufer, before losing consciousness, identified his attacker: "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako."
Edgar, arriving to help, was repeatedly stabbed, his intestines spilling from the wounds, before Sanchez fled.
At about 6:35 a.m. PO1 Reynaldo Candelaria, responding to a radio call, arrived; John Ray identified the assailant; on opening the gate Candelaria saw Sanchez running toward the back of the house holding a knife and, after a chase and with help from nearby residents, arrested him. This is the only mention of the arrest anywhere in the Decision.
Jufer and Edgar died — "Stab wounds, trunk." Jeane and Jelyn were hospitalised for multiple stab wounds.
Four Informations were filed in the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272 (Crim. Case Nos. 06-8245-MK to 06-8248-MK) — two for Murder, two for Frustrated Murder, each alleging treachery and evident premeditation. He pleaded not guilty, and with his conformity the defence formally waived presenting any evidence at all.
On 23 July 2007 the RTC convicted him on all four counts; on 27 February 2009 the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification of damages. His sole assigned error, throughout, was that treachery and evident premeditation were unproved.
On 29 June 2010 the First Division, through Justice Velasco, Jr., denied the appeal, modifying only the civil damages.

Issue

Ancillary issue. The proper measure of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, given R.A. No. 9346 and Article 63.

Ruling

AS TO THE SUBTOPIC — NOT APPLICABLE. The arrest is recited once as uncontested background and never revisited; there is no holding to state.

Ancillary issue. DAMAGES MODIFIED. ₱75,000.00 civil indemnity affirmed, moral damages increased to ₱75,000.00, and ₱30,000.00 exemplary damages awarded per murder count.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02902 finding Albert Sanchez y Galera guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and sentencing him to serve prison terms therein defined without parole is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon the increased amount of PhP 75,000 as moral damages and the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06-8246-MK. No pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Treachery was assessed victim by victim, applying the two-condition test — means ensuring the offender's safety from retaliation, and deliberate choice of that means — and reaching a different result for Jeane than for the other three.
That divergence is the Decision's own lesson: treachery must be evaluated separately for each victim even within one continuous criminal episode.
Evident premeditation was built from circumstantial evidence satisfying all three elements — the time of the resolve, an overt act showing adherence to it, and a sufficient interval for reflection — spanning the night before through the morning of the attack.
Jufer's identification was received as a dying declaration, made under consciousness of impending death, and given "utmost credence."
And no arrest issue was ever reached because none was raised — unsurprising given the defence's strategic choice to present no evidence and to confine the appeal to a single narrow qualifying-circumstance argument.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

On 26 June 2006, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., Albert Sanchez — a former houseboy of the De Leon family, who lived at Dela Paz St., Marikina City — entered the De Leon home while the parents (Edgar and Jeane) were out, told ten-year-old John Ray De Leon that his father would give him money, and proceeded upstairs; when confronted upon the parents' return, he asked for money, was given P100.00, and left with a hostile expression. Later that night, the couple's son Jufer confided that Sanchez had pointed a knife at him and threatened to kill him while in the comfort room.
Very early on 27 January 2006 (the year in the Decision's own body narrative shifts from "2006" for the night-before events to specific dates that are internally described as "January 2006" in the criminal Informations, apparently a typographical inconsistency in the source between "June" and "January" for the same continuous overnight episode; this digest reports the dates as they appear in the Decision without attempting to resolve the discrepancy), at around 5:00 a.m., Sanchez surreptitiously re-entered the De Leon home. Jelyn Mae, sent to wake her brother Jufer, was seized from behind, had a knife pointed at her neck, and was stabbed; she managed to plead for her life. Jeane, alerted by a commotion, found Sanchez holding a bloodied knife over Jufer, was herself later stabbed by Sanchez while trying to aid her husband, and Jufer, before losing consciousness, identified his attacker to his mother: "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako." Edgar, arriving to help, was likewise repeatedly stabbed by Sanchez, his intestines spilling out from the wounds, before Sanchez fled the house.
At around 6:35 a.m., PO1 Reynaldo Candelaria, responding to a radio call reporting a stabbing incident, proceeded to the De Leon residence. John Ray met and identified the assailant to him. On opening the gate, Candelaria saw Sanchez running toward the back of the house holding a knife and, after a chase, with the help of nearby residents, caught up with and arrested Sanchez. (This is the sole mention of the arrest anywhere in the Decision.)
Jufer and Edgar died of their stab wounds; the cause of death for both was recorded as "Stab wounds, trunk." Jeane and Jelyn were hospitalized and treated for multiple stab wounds.
Four Informations were filed against Sanchez in the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272 (Crim. Case Nos. 06-8245-MK to 06-8248-MK): two for Murder (Jufer and Edgar) and two for Frustrated Murder (Jeane and Jelyn), each alleging treachery and evident premeditation. Sanchez, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to all charges.
At trial, the prosecution presented the surviving family members and the medico-legal officer; the defense, with Sanchez's conformity, formally waived its right to present any evidence.
On 23 July 2007, the RTC rendered judgment finding Sanchez guilty on all four counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each murder count and indeterminate prison terms for each frustrated murder count, plus civil indemnity, actual damages, and moral damages.
Sanchez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02902), raising the sole assignment of error that the RTC erred in finding treachery and evident premeditation proven beyond reasonable doubt. On 27 February 2009, the CA affirmed with modification (increasing civil indemnity, reducing moral damages, in the two murder counts).
Sanchez filed a timely Notice of Appeal; the Supreme Court accepted the appeal by Resolution of 16 September 2009, and the parties opted to submit the case on the existing record.
The Supreme Court (Velasco, Jr., J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest on 29 June 2010, denying the appeal, affirming the conviction, and modifying only the civil damages.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Accused-Appellant (Albert Sanchez y Galera).

B. Plaintiff-Appellee (People of the Philippines).

C. Common Ground.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

B. Secondary Issues.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

Ruling

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 27, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02902 finding Albert Sanchez y Galera guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and sentencing him to serve prison terms therein defined without parole is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Jufer James and Edgar De Leon the increased amount of PhP 75,000 as moral damages and the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of murder in Criminal Case Nos. 06-8245-MK and 06-8246-MK. No pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

(Presented for completeness given the Materiality Rule, notwithstanding the INCIDENTAL classification; none of the following bears on Rule 113.)

The Court applied the two-condition test for treachery — means/method ensuring the offender's safety from retaliation, and deliberate choice of that means — separately to each victim, reaching different results for Jeane (no treachery, having been forewarned) than for the other three victims (treachery present), illustrating that treachery must be assessed victim-by-victim even within a single continuous criminal episode.
For evident premeditation, the Court applied the three-element test (time of the resolve to commit the crime; an overt act showing adherence to that resolve; a sufficient interval for reflection) and found all three satisfied through a chain of circumstantial evidence spanning the night before the attack (the threat, the P100.00 exchange, Sanchez's hostile demeanor) through the morning of the attack itself (covert entry, multiple weapons brought or found at the scene).
Because no arrest-related issue was ever raised by the defense — which is unsurprising given the defense's own strategic choice to present no evidence and to confine its appeal to a single, narrow qualifying-circumstance argument — the Court had no occasion to discuss, let alone rule on, any Rule 113 duty.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

(Substantive criminal law doctrines, not Rule 113 — included per the Materiality Rule to explain what this Decision actually stands for, since it is not properly cited for an arrest-duty proposition.)

Treachery in the killing of a child of tender years may be appreciated even without a specific showing of the manner of assault, given the child's inherent defenselessness.
Treachery must be shown to be present at the inception of the attack; a victim who has been forewarned and is not taken completely by surprise cannot support a treachery finding, even if an aggravating circumstance (such as abuse of superior strength) may still apply.
Evident premeditation requires proof of (a) the time the offender resolved to commit the crime, (b) an overt act manifesting adherence to that resolve, and (c) a sufficient lapse of time for reflection, provable by circumstantial evidence.
A dying declaration identifying one's assailant, made under consciousness of impending death, is admissible under Section 37, Rule 130 and is accorded the "utmost credence."

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

None applicable to the assigned Topic/Subtopic, for the reasons stated in the classification. As to the substantive doctrines actually laid down, the Court is explicit that treachery does not automatically attach to every victim of a single criminal episode merely because it attached to others — Jeane's case is the Decision's own illustration of that limitation.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: INCIDENTAL.

People v. Sanchez (2010) does not apply, distinguish, extend, or reject any doctrine concerning the duty of an arresting officer.
The arrest of Sanchez — a hot-pursuit-type apprehension of a fleeing, knife-wielding suspect moments after the crime — is recited as an uncontested background fact and never becomes a legal issue anywhere in the pleadings or the Decision.
Digesting this case as though it "held" something about Rule 113 would manufacture a connection the Decision does not support; the honest and accurate report, consistent with the Topic Fidelity Rule, is that this case belongs to substantive criminal law (Article 248's qualifying circumstances) and only incidentally, in passing narrative, touches the assigned Subtopic.

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision was concurred in by Corona, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.