Perspectivas de la industria aceitera en centroamérica

Solamillo, Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata, who lived together in the bakery.Edgardo Ebarle, Eddie Trumata and appellants were at the bakery. Aleli Guiroy, the victim‘s daughter, saw them when she arrived.The next morning, Aleli returned to the bakery but was unable to open the doors. She sought help from her uncle, Lorenzo Guiroy who, in turn, asked Warlito Gonoz to accompany her back to the bakery. When Warlito peeped through a window, he saw the victim

lying on the floor. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police.PO3 Celso Tan Sanchez arrived and found the victims dead body, a wooden stool, a bolo and a piece of bakawan (firewood), all with blood. The table drawers were open and the bakery was in disarray.Aleli informed PO3 Sanchez that her fathers P20, 000.00, wallet and Seiko watch were missing.

HELD: The trial court erred in appreciating against appellants the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed: (a) by a band; (b) with evident premeditation; (c) with deliberate cruelty; and (d) with treachery.

The trial court held that the crime was committed with deliberate cruelty considering that the victim suffered 21 hack and stab-wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different parts of his body. The number of wounds is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating

circumstance. The mere fact that wounds in excess of what is necessary to cause death were

inflicted upon the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.It is necessary to show that the accused intentionally and deliberately increased the victim's suffering. In this case, there is no evidence showing appellants intent to commit such cruelty.

Dukduk Solamillo and Julian Solamillo are found GUILTY of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES RPC, Art. 15

Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as

aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it

shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

RELATIONSHIP PEOPLE v ATOP286 SCRA 157 FACTS:Regina Guafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the accused Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad Atop

 Her mother is a daughter of Trinidad Atop and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child

and she does not even know her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her grandmother Trinidad Atop and the accused. Sometime in 1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused started having lustful desire on her. The accused then inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. She was then told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued staying with her grandmother and her common law husband Alejandro Atop.

 Oct. 9, 1992 – Atop had carnal knowledge of Regina. Regina informed her grandmother but

her grandmother refused to believe her.

 Regina reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993, and 1994 only in January

1995. She said that she was afraid to report the incident because Ali threatened to kill her. Ali denied the accusations of Regina and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who were the daughters of his live in partner.

Issues:

1. WON the circumstance of relationship as aggravating can be appreciated.

o Spouse o Ascendant o Descendant

o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister o Relative by affinity in the same degree

 Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage.

Relatives by affinity are those commonly referred to as in-laws, stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like.

 Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and

fourth enumeration above.

 The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations.

 There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the

modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against him

INTOXICATION PEOPLE vIBAÑEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24. July 30, 2003] FACTS:Felix Olanda, in his early eighties, and wife Rosario, 72 were soundly asleep when Felix suddenly felt somebody hack him. Felix recognized appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. He went to the main door of their house and asked for help. He saw his wife already dead.

Earlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of Juanito Sarmiento. Sarmiento saw appellant with scratches on his legs, knees and arms. Ibañez told him that he escaped from his employer who is a palay dealer and asked for money in order to go to Umangan. Sarmiento gave himP20.00. On October 20, 1996, Sarmiento reported the incident to the police. When he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene – bolo, maong pants, t-shirt, and belt – he recognized them to be those of appellant. Atty. Gavino Villanueva assisted appellant in the execution of the extrajudicial confession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT AND INTOXICATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.

HELD:

Intoxication as a generic mitigating circumstance. Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is mitigating when it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. To be mitigating, the accused‘s state of intoxication must be proved.In the case at bar, appellant merely alleged that when the offenses were committed, he was so drunk. However, his self-serving statement in the extrajudicial confession was not corroborated by other evidence. The defense did not present evidence neither was it elicited on cross-examination of Juanito Sarmiento who testified that appellant went to see him between 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning on the date of incident. Thus, appellant‘s bare assertion of intoxication is devoid of any probative value.

Juanito Ibañez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

PEOPLE v BAJAR 414 SCRA 494 FACTS:Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in their house, her mother Lolita, suggested that since her father was very drunk, she should sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, the victim Aquilio, 100 meters away. Alejandro, who was still obviously very drunk, inquiring whether his wife was in the house.Aquilio answered that his wife was in their (Alejandro‘s) house. Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter. Ana heard a sound and saw that

Alejandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. She saw her father hack her grandfather, who was lying on the bed. She got up, ran towards the sala, and saw her father still hacking his grandfather. While he was being stabbed and attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace his son-in-law. Ana shouted for help as she held down the hand which her father used to wield the bolo.

Alejandro testified that on the date and time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana and Alma, and his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He proceeded to his father-in- law‘s house to look for his wife. Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: ―Pa, good evening.‖ The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited him (Alejandro) to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went up, and not finding his wife, said: ―She is not here Pa.‖ Aquilio angrily retorted: ―Everytime you are drunk you come here to ask me.‖ Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.Alejandro then touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. He felt dizzy. Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand from the right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost consciousness.

HELD:We affirm Alejandro‘s conviction.

With regard to the alternative circumstance of intoxication, which the trial court treated as aggravating, we find that it has not been shown to be habitual or intentional as required by Article

15 of the Revised Penal Code. Lolita testified ―that her husband would drink liquor once a week

but was not a frequent drinker.‖ She also admitted that on that fateful day, there was a fiesta celebration at Barangay Mambayaan. As Alejandro insists, it was but natural for him to drink liquor during fiesta celebrations. In the absence of clear and positive proof that Alejandro‘s intoxication was habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, it is improper to consider the same as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can intoxication be considered mitigating in the instant case, there being no proof that the appellant was so drunk that his will-power was impaired or that he could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.