Análisis Inferencial:

appellant‘s drinking, gambling and womanizing. On the night of the incident, Romeo Rivera heard the couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was used to their arguments.At around

midnight, appellant went to Rivera‘s house to check whether his wife Evelyn was there. Rivera, his wife and appellant conversed in the former‘s garage for about 30 min, with the Rivera couple suggesting places where appellant should look for his wife. At around 1:00 a.m., Alfred Young, passing by appellant‘s house, he saw Evelyn seated on a wooden chair in front of the window of the house. She appeared lifeless because her head was "hanging." Appellant was about an arm‘s length away from Evelyn. At about the same time, Romeo Adayo, who was walking home, saw appellant. The latter was about 20 steps away from him, carrying the body of his wife Evelyn over his right shoulder. Appellant was walking very fast towards a dark street. The body of Evelyn was discovered by a neighbor at around 5:00 a.m., 15 meters away from her house.

HELD:Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where no evidence

was presented showing that nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken

advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from captive.

Here, there is no evidence showing that appellant purposely sought the cover of darkness to insure the commission of the crime

Besides the aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the information and cannot therefore justify the death penalty. Section 8, Rule 11013 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now requires that any aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information for it to be

appreciated in the imposition of the penalty. Since the rule is favorable to the accused, it can be given retroactive effect, consistent with the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The decision of the Trail Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.

ON THE OCCASSION OF A CALAMITY PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER RECIVIDISM PEOLPLE v BALDERA 86 PHIL 189 FACTS:The evidence shows Casa Manila bus loaded with passenger left Batangas bound for Manila. On the highway in barrio Calansayan, same province, it was held up by a group of 5-6 armed men. One is identified as Pedro Baldera, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed by a hail of bullets coming from different directions. As a result, several passengers, among them Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza, were wounded. Appellant got on the bus and, threatening the passengers with his gun, took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana Villena. Another passenger named Francisco Mendoza was also relieved of his P3. Appellant then alighted and ordered the bus to proceed, whereupon the driver headed for the municipal building of San Jose and there reported the incident to the authorities. Testifying in his own defense, appellant denies participation in the crime charged, declaring that he passed the night in question in a house of prostitution in Batangas, where he was employed by the prostitutes for drawing water. But this alibi is without corroboration and can not stand up against the clear and positive testimony of Ponciano Villena. who has not shown to have any motive for falsely testifying against him.

HELD:The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the accused the circumstance of

recidivism by reason of his previous conviction for theft, it appearing that crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947 while the offense now charged took place seven days before that date.

In conclusion, we find appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious physical injuries with two aggravating circumstances. But there being no sufficient vote to impose the extreme penalty, appellant can be sentenced to life imprisonment only.

Wherefore, reducing appellant's sentence to life imprisonment but increasing the indemnity to be paid by him to the heirs of the deceased Jose Cabrera to P6,000, the judgement below as so modified is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

REITERATION OR HABITUALITY RPC, Art 62 (5) Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual

delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken

into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense;

Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony

after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.chan robles virtual law libraryAny convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.

REITERATION OR HABITUALITY PEOPLE v GAORANA 289 SCRA 652 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Marivel Fuentes, private complainant, was instructed by Rowena Sanchez, common-law wife of appellant, to go to her house which was about 20 meters away.When Marivel arrived in she saw appellant and Rowena lying down. Rowena bade her to come in and Rowena left the house. Appellant approachedMarivel, covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife to her neck. Appellant made her lie down on the floor and he put himself on top ofMarivel and had intercourse with her. After about 5 min, Rowena came back and saw appellant still on top of Marivel. Appellant instructed Rowena to step out of the room.

The second incident of rape occurred at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6, 1991.Marivel was sleeping in the sala when she was awakened by the kisses of appellant. Appellant had a knife which scaredMarivel. Again appellant had intercourse with her. Mariveldid not shout because she was afraid of appellant who was a prisoner and had already killed somebody.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Appellant interposes the defense of alibi and denial. Ruling of the Trial Court:

Quasi-Recidivism Was Not Established

The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted was serving sentence for the crime of homicide.However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of appellant's previous conviction. Quasi- recidivism, like recidivism andreiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against him.

PEOPLE v BALDOGO GR 129126-07 FACTS: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 NicodemusBaguio/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.

HELD:Quasi-recidivism is alleged in both Informations. Appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance.The prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said

judgment had become final and executory. In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide by the RTC of Baguio. The excerpt of the prison record of appellant is not the best evidence to prove the judgment of the RTC and to prove that said judgment had become final and executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused- appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him.

PRICE, PROMISE OR REWARD MEANS OF COMMISSION TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC OFFICE RPC, Art 19 (3) Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:chan robles virtual law library

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

PEOPLE v SUMAOY G.R. No. 105961