CASE DIGEST

SACOP, AL LESTER F.
People vs. Petalino [G.R. No. 213222,
September 24, 2018]

FACTS:
Eyewitness Franklin Bariquit recalled that on November 30, 1997, he attended a party with his
friend, acertain Carlo, in Barangay Danao, Iznart Street, Iloilo City. There, he met and befriended
Johnny Nalangay, thevictim in this case. At around 1:30 a.m., he and the victim decided to leave.
They then headed towards the YMCA wherethey intended to get their respective rides for
home. Bariquit walked behind the victim when the two passed through a narrow alley towards
Iznart St. While they were walking, Bariquit saw a person, whom he later identified as Petalino,
walking towards them from the opposite direction. When Petalino had passed the victim, he
suddenlyturned towards him, grabbed his hair and without warning, stabbed the victim in the
back. The victim tried to runaway, but he fell down after running a distance. Thereafter, Petalino
and Bariquit confronted each other, The latter kicked Petalino causing him to fall down and to
drop his knife. Bariquit then ran away and proceeded to PO's Marketing which was located near
the Bank of the Philippine Islands. After sensing that Petalino was no longer chasing him, he
went back to the alley where he last saw the victim. There, Bariquit found the victim lying on the
ground, face down and bloodied allover. The victim managed to utter some words but became
unconscious when he was taken to St. Paul's Hospital where he eventually died.
ISSUES:
WoN Petalino is guilty of murder
 NO, only homicide. The RTC and the CA both ruled out the challenge posed by Petalino
against Bariquit's credibility. We agree with them. The inconsistencies referred to what had
transpired before the crime was committed, and did not to relate to material facts vital to the
determination of the guilt or innocence of Petalino.
 To start with, the acts constituting treachery were not sufficiently averred in the information. It
isclear from the averments to the effect that "Petalino, armed with a knife, with treachery and
evident premeditation, with a decided [purpose] to kill .... stab, hit and wound Johnny
Nalangay with thesaid knife... causing upon the latter injuries on vital parts of his body which
caused his death" did not state that Petalino had deliberately adopted means of execution that
denied to the victim the opportunity to defend himself, or to retaliate; or that Petalino had
consciously and deliberately adopted the mode of attach to ensure himself from any risk from
the defense that the victim might make. To merely state in the information that treachery was
attendant is not enough because the usage of the term treachery was but a conclusion of law.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on April 24,
2014 by the Court of Appeals subject to the following MODIFICATIONS,
namely: (1) accused-appellant ALBERTO PETALINO alias "LANIT" is found
and pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE, and,
ACCORDINGLY, is punished with the indeterminate sentence of nine years
of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum; and (2) accused-appellant ALBERTO
PETALINO alias "LANIT" is ORDERED TO PAY to the heirs of the late
Johnny Nalangay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus legal interest of 6%
per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full settlement.
People vs. Lababo [G.R. No. 234651,
June 06, 2018]

FACTS:
Accused-appellants Benito, Wenefredo, Junior, and FFF, all surnamed "Lababo," were charged in an Information for the crime of
Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Catarman, Northern Samar, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4460, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 27th day of October 2007, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon at (portion deleted) Province of Northern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring with, confederating and
mutually helping one another, armed with an unlicensed homemade shotgun locally known as "bardog" and with a long bolo, with
deliberate intent to kill thru treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot AAA2 with the use of said weapons which the accused had provided themselves for the
purpose, thereby inflicting upon said AAA a gunshot wound which directly caused the death of said victim. CONTRARY TO LAW.
Additionally, accused-appellants Benito and Wenefredo were likewise indicted with the crime of Frustrated Murder before Branch 20,
RTC of Catarman, or Northern Samar. Docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4479, the Information reads:
That on or about the 27th day of October, 2007, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in (portion deleted) Province of Northern
Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above­named accused armed with a homemade shotgun,
conspiring with (sic) confederating, and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent to kill thru treachery and evident
premeditation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot BBB4 with the use of said weapon
which the accused had provided themselves for the purpose, thus the accused having performed all the acts of execution which could
have produced the crime of murder but did not produce it by reason of some cause independent of the will of the (sic) herein,
accused, that is the timely and (sic) medical attendance to said BBB which prevented his death.
That the commission of the crime was aggravated with the use of an unlicensed firearm
ISSUES:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that accused-appellants are guilty of the crimes
charged.
RULING:
In its Decision, dated July 8, 2014, the RTC found accused appellants guilty of murder. Benito and Wenefredo
were also found guilty for the crime of frustrated murder. According to the trial court, despite the fact that there
was no eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime, the combination of the circumstantial evidence
points out to accused-appellants as the perpetrators and conspirators.17 The fallo of the Decision reads:
From all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused BENITO LABABO @ BEN, WENEFREDO LABABO and FFF,
in Crim. Case No. C-4460 are also (sic) found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the private complainant each the amount of
P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, P25,000.00 exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Accused BENITO LABABO @ BEN and WENEFREDO LABABO in Crim. Case No. C-4479 are also found guilty of
the (sic) frustrated murder beyond reasonable doubt, and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor medium as minimum to FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to