7/29/2019 Case Digest Crim

1/4

CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. BALDOGO [G.R. No. 129106-07 (2003)]November 10, 2010

Nature: Automatic Review of a Decision of the RTC of Palawan

? Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio & Edgar Bermas alias Bunso were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of

Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony

? On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to

the mountains.

? During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was

located under a Tamarind tree.

? Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she

asked for help from Nicodemus

? Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for

sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise

he will also be killed.

? Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that

during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from

Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and

to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.

? The trial court convicted Bunso of

o Murder appreciating against him the specific aggravating circumstance of taking advantage and use of

superior strength, w/o any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, & pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par.,

No. 1, of A63 of the RPC, he is hereby sentenced to death

o Kidnapping no modifying circumstance appreciated and pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par., No. 2, of

A63 of the RPC, & not being entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to

reclusion perpetua, w/ the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life, & of perpetual absolute disqualification;

Issues:

1. WON the accused is guilty of murder and kidnapping. YES

? Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he

did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a

credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to probative weight because she was merely coached into

implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas.

? Julies testimony is credible findings of facts of the TC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the

parties, its assessment of the probative weight of the collective evidence of the parties & its conclusions anchored on

its findings are accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not conclusive effect. The raison detre of this

principle is that this Court has to contend itself w/ the mute pages of the original records in resolving the issues posed

by the parties; The TC has the unique advantage of monitoring & observing at close range the attitude, conduct &

deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective testimonies before said court

? Exceptions:

a. when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court;

b. when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence;

c. when the TC ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued facts & circumstances of substance

which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case

? Its incumbent on the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged had

been committed & that accused-appellant precisely committed the same. Prosecution must rely on the strength of its

own evidence & not on the weakness of accuseds evidence

? The prosecution adduced indubitable proof that accused-appellant conspired w/ Bermas not only in killing

Jorge but also in kidnapping & detaining Julie. There is conspiracy if 2 or more persons agree to commit a felony &

7/29/2019 Case Digest Crim

2/4

decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be

inferred from the acts of the accused, before, during & after the commission of a felony pointing to a joint purpose &

design & community of intent. As long as all the conspirators performed specific acts w/ such closeness &

coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design in bringing about the death of the victim, all the

conspirators are criminally liable for the death of said victim.

2. WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and generic aggravating circumstance

of taking advantage of superior strength can be appreciated.

? To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff.

requisites

a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime;

b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and

c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect

upon the consequences of his act.

? Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself

? It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony

up to the time that he actually commits it.

? The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his

determination to commit the crime. The law doesnt prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon

has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.

? Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located

about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge

and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony.

insufficient evidence for evident premeditation.

? Baldogo & Bermas were armed w/ bolos, theres no evidence that they took advantage of their numerical

superiority & weapons to kill Jorge. Hence, abuse of superior strength cant be deemed to have attended the killing of

Jorge.

? Dwelling aggravating because there is no evidence that Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their

house and killed outside the said house

? Killing was qualified w/ treachery Court has previously held that the killing of minor children who by reason

of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended by treachery. Since treachery attended

the killing, abuse of superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance.

BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case DigestRENATO BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 138033 January 30, 2007

FACTS: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila, the

accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in

chemical with dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to havecarnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some

cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against

her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

Renato Baleros, Jr. moved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision acquitting him of the crime

of attempted rape but adjudging him guilty of light coercion. It is Baleros' submission that his

7/29/2019 Case Digest Crim

3/4

conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted rape, runs counter to the en banc

ruling in People v. Contreras where the Court held: The SOLGEN contends that Contreras should be

held liable for unjust vexation under Art. 287(2) of the RPC. However, the elements of unjust

vexation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in Art. 335. Moreover, the circumstances

stated in the information do not constitute the elements of the said crime. Contreras, therefore,

cannot be convicted of unjust vexation.

ISSUE: Whether Renato Baleros, Jr. is guilty of unjust vexation.

HELD: Yes. He argues that the Information against him does not allege that the act of covering the

face of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her annoyance, irritation, torment,

distress and disturbance. The SC wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be

alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of

restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct

which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an

innocent person.

The paramount question in a prosecution for unjust vexation is whether the offender's act causes

annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is

directed. That the victim, after the incident cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived

to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that

she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the Baleros.

G.R. No. 110097; December 22, 1997FACTS:

Appellant Arnulfo Astorga appealed the courts decision on Criminal Case No. 8243 wherein

appellant was charged with violation of Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code or the

kidnap and detention of a minor.

Astorga insisted that the inconsistencies and the contradictions of the prosecutions witnesses

should be deemed incredible and that the delay in the filing of the accusation weakened the case.

Furthermore, Astorga claimed that he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year-old Yvonne Traya which

shouldve been apparent and proven upon conviction. Ultimately, Astorga claimed that the court

erred in convicting him despite the fact that he had not detained nor locked Yvonne up which is an

important element in kidnapping.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the prosecutions witnesses were credible.

2.) Whether or not the lack of motive by the appellant is significant in the courts decision.

7/29/2019 Case Digest Crim

4/4

3.) Whether or not it was kidnapping or coercion.

RULING:

1.) The delay in the making of the criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility

of the witnesses especially if it had been satisfactorily explained. In the case, one week was

reasonable since the victim was a resident in Binaungan and that the case was filed in Tagum,

Davao.

2.) The court found it irrelevant to identify the motive since motive is not an element of the crime.

Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Besides, the appellant himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central

Elementary School.

3.) The court agreed with the appellants contention. The evidence does not show that appellant

wanted to detain Yvonne; much less, that he actually detained her. Appellants forcible dragging of

Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on theperson of Yvonne. There was no lock up. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping

under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Rather, the felony committed was grave coercion

under Article 286 of the same code.