PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

SPO1 RODOLFO CONCEPCION y PERALTA

FACTS: Appellant seeks the reversal of the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac,
finding him guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. An information2 for
murder was filed with the trial court charging him with murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about November 24, 1997 between 10:00 and 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in Brgy.
Cut-Cut II, Municipality of Tarlac and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court the said
accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot with his Armalite rifle Lorenzo Galang hitting him at the different parts of his
body and as a result of which said Lorenzo Galang died instantly. Conception contended on his
appeal that the lower court gravely erred in not finding that the injuries sustained by the
deceased were unintentionally inflicted while accused-appellant was in the course of performing
his lawful duty as a police officer.14

ISSUE: WON failure of specifying qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the information
could still be appreciated to increase liability.

HELD: No. Every complaint or information must state not only the qualifying but also the
aggravating circumstances. Since the information failed to specify treachery as a circumstance
qualifying the killing to murder, under the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
treachery has to be considered a generic aggravating circumstance only. Consequently, the
crime committed is homicide and not murder.

Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of official position, not having been alleged in
the information, could thus not be appreciated to increase appellant’s liability.

There being one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and one aggravating

FACTS: The defendant-appellant was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila upon
appeal from the Municipal Court, of our separate offenses of estafa and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment in G.R. No. 48519 for two months and one day, arresto mayor, and in each of the
other three cases for three months and eleven days, arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended
parties respectively in the sums of P140, P94.50 P83.50 and P189, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
It appears that the appellant was sentenced by this Court undergo imprisonment in five cases.
The most severe penalty imposed upon the appellant is from four months and twenty days to
one year, eight months and twenty-one days, and the sum total of his several penalties does
not exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the maximum limit thereof.

ISSUE: WON the threefold ruled is applicable on the case of the appellant.

HELD:  No. With respect to the most severe penalty and the sum total of his several penalties
does not exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the maximum limit thereof, we
cannot for the present make the pronouncement that article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217, is applicable. However, in anticipation, we may state
that, if in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law the appellant should be entitled to
be released on parole after service of the minimum limit of the aforesaid indeterminate penalty
(from four months and twenty days to one year, eight months and twenty-one days), or of a
greater period below the maximum limit threefold the length of which is less than the sum total
of all the penalties imposed upon him, his aggregate prison term would be reduced to not more
than three times period thus served. Judgment appealed was affirmed with costs against the
appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GABRIEL ANNIBONG y INGGAO
G. R. No. 139879 - May 8, 2003

FACTS: Victim, Cpl. Obngayan arrived at the Philippine Army detachment in Brgy. Doña Loreta,
Pudtol, Apayao where he was then the commanding officer. 5 Still perspiring and thirsty from an
operation in Centro, Pudtol, Apayao, Cpl. Obngayan hurriedly proceeded to the camp's kitchen
for a drink. Incensed that all of the water containers were empty, Obngayan confronted
appellant whose duty it was to maintain the camp's kitchen. He gave appellant a jab in the
abdomen, then slowly walked away towards his bunker.Infuriated, appellant without warning,
picked up his M-14 armalite rifle and strafed the former on the back. Obngayan sprawled
bloodied on the ground. Shortly after, appellant took the garand rifle of Artemio Tallong, and
unleashed another barrage of gunshots. Obngayan died instantaneously. Thus, this automatic
review for the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Apayao convicting appellant Gabriel
Annibong of murder and sentencing him to death.

ISSUES: (1) whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of Cpl. Obngayan;
(2) whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation; and
(3) whether the imposition of the death penalty on appellant is appropriate.

HELD: (1) Granting that the initial act of aggression came from the victim when he cursed and
then punched appellant three times in the stomach, such aggression did not amount to actual
or imminent threat to appellant's life as the victim already ceased and desisted thereafter.
(2) The element of treachery attended the slaying of Obngayan because (1) the means
of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
As for evident premeditation, its elements were not clearly established by the
prosecution. To prove this attendant circumstance, evidence must show: (1) the time the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to
his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the
crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his
act. There is no clear proof as to when the accused hatched the murderous plan, and the
interval of time therefrom to its commission.
(3) Considering that the crime was not attended by the alleged circumstance of evident
premeditation, the undisputed presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
entitles appellant to the imposition of the minimum penalty for murder. Thus, the proper
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, being the lesser penalty.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
was declared guilty of murder, but his sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Further, he
was ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P1,620,000.00 for lost earnings, P10,000.00 as nominal damages, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P20,000 as exemplary damages.