People vs. Pablo

Conspiracy may be inferred from the accused’s armed presence and united action before, during, and after the killing, and where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all; treachery qualifies the killing when the unarmed victims are dragged and attacked in a manner that deprives them of any opportunity to defend themselves.

The appellants were charged in four separate Informations with the murder of Domingo Loveres, Robert Loveres, and Lucita Loveres and with the attempted murder of Edgar Loveres, all allegedly committed in Quezon City on March 8, 1992. They pleaded not guilty, and the RTC conducted a joint trial. The crimes were committed before Republic Act No. 7659 was enacted on January 1, 1994, so murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was then punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.

On March 8, 1992, at around 7:45 in the evening, Lucita Loveres and her children Jocelyn, Edgar, Alma, and Robert were eating supper in their house at No. 5 Tambis Street, Area 9, Pasong Tamo, Tandang Sora, Quezon City; Lucita’s husband Domingo Loveres was sleeping, and Lucita’s sister Aida Gertos was also staying with them. They heard Renato “Panong” Danao call from outside, “Manang.” Lucita went out with Jocelyn and Edgar, while Aida stood outside the door. Outside their gate, they saw Panong, appellant Danilo Pablo, appellant Nicolas Compra, one Rencio, appellant Edwin Trabuncon, Inggo Pablo, Jerry Trabuncon, one Redford, and their other companions. Inggo Pablo held a bolo; Panong held a gun; Rencio and Jerry Trabuncon each held a knife; Edwin Trabuncon held a piece of wood; Danilo Pablo held a knife; and Nicolas Compra held a bolo. Panong asked Lucita to let the troublemaker come out, and Lucita replied that nobody was making trouble. Panong suddenly shot her in the neck. Edgar and Jocelyn, who were beside her, witnessed the shooting. When Edgar lifted his mother, Inggo Pablo stabbed him, and Edwin Trabuncon hit him on the left forearm with a piece of wood. Danilo Pablo was an “alalay” or aide of Panong and was holding a knife, while Nicolas Compra was holding a bolo. Edgar ran toward their house and stood by the window.

Jocelyn embraced her mother and pulled her away from the gate to the front of their house, where Lucita fell. Domingo, awakened by the commotion, came out of the house; Jocelyn ran toward him, but the group of Panong, Domingo Pablo, Rencio, Edwin Trabuncon, Danilo Pablo, Nicolas Compra, and other companions dragged him toward the house of Inggo Pablo, five meters away and separated only by a street. Robert followed his father and was likewise dragged by the same group. In front of Inggo Pablo’s house, the group, including the appellants, helped one another stab, hack, and kill Domingo and Robert. Nicolas Compra held Robert’s right upper arm when Robert was stabbed by the brother of Renato Pablo, Danilo Pablo, and Edwin Trabuncon, and released him after he was hacked at the neck. Edgar witnessed the incident from their window, while Jocelyn followed her father and was only an arm’s length away from him and her brother when they were stabbed. There was a fluorescent light at the corner where the incident happened. After the incident, the group of assailants fled together with their families in a stainless jeepney.

Edgar left through their back door and went to Fort Bonifacio to seek help from his uncle Godofredo Borja, who brought him to the Rizal Medical Center in Pasig, Metro Manila; a medical certificate dated March 17, 1992 showed an incised wound on the distal third of the distal phalanx of the second digit of the right hand and an abrasion on the medial aspect of the left forearm secondary to stabbing. Aida Gertos brought Lucita to the Philippine Heart Center, where Lucita died. PO3 Roberto Cristobal and other police officers arrived at the crime scene and saw the dead bodies of Domingo and Robert Loveres sprawled on the ground in front of the house of Domingo Pablo; the relatives of the victims were not there, and the neighbors did not want to get involved for fear of getting killed because the suspects were allegedly notorious. From the crime scene, PO3 Cristobal went to the Philippine Heart Center, where he found one of the victims and Jocelyn Loveres, who told him that Panong Pablo, Domingo Pablo, and other persons whose names she did not know killed her parents and brother; she gave a statement at the police station at about 11:45 that night. Danilo Pablo was arrested while walking at Pier 14, North Harbor, Manila; Nicolas Compra was later arrested at Meralco, Karuhatan, Valenzuela; they were brought to Police Station 2 in Quezon City, where PO3 Cristobal conducted a custodial investigation, and Jocelyn and Edgar Loveres gave additional statements. On April 1, 1992, Edwin Trabuncon was arrested by PO3 Cristobal in Iloilo City after Aida Gertos identified him on a jeepney bound for Antique; on April 3, 1992, Jocelyn and Edgar Loveres identified Edwin Trabuncon as one of those who killed their parents and brother and gave written statements.

On March 9, 1992, Medico-legal Officer Dario Gajardo conducted an autopsy of the bodies of Domingo, Lucita, and Robert Loveres. Domingo’s cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to stab and hacked wounds; he sustained 10 wounds—four stab wounds, one hacked wound, one incised wound, and several abrasions—and stab wounds nos. 3 and 4 and the hacked wound were serious enough to cause death. A pointed single-bladed instrument was used in Domingo’s stab wounds and a sharp and heavy instrument in the hacked wound; with the wounds sustained, there could have been three assailants. Robert’s death was caused by cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to stab and hacked wounds in the neck and trunk; he sustained 11 wounds—three stab wounds, one hacked wound, two incised wounds, three contusions, and multiple abrasions—and the hacked wound on the neck and the stab wound at the right lumbar region were serious. More than one weapon was used on Robert, and there were possibly three assailants. Lucita’s cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to a gunshot wound in the trunk; the bullet entered above the left clavicle and exited at the upper outer quadrant of the back, and no slug was recovered. Aida Gertos and the relatives of the victims spent P1,010.60 for medicines, P18,500.00 for funeral services, P300.00 for the mass, and P7,500.00 for burial expenses, totaling P27,310.60.

Appellant Edwin Trabuncon testified that on March 8, 1992, at around 7:30 in the evening, he was beside the house of Domingo “Inggo” Pablo with his friend Popong telling stories; Inggo passed by and asked permission to fetch water, and when he returned he was very angry because Max Trabuncon allegedly uttered unsavory words to him. Inggo entered the house of Renato “Panong” Danao, and Inggo and Panong returned and told Edwin not to let his uncle go out because they were going to kill him, adding that whoever would come out from the house would also be included; Panong also threatened to kill Edwin if he interfered. Edwin saw his uncle Max Trabuncon go out of the gate, ran and pulled him back to their house, and pushed him inside because he was very drunk, after which Edwin heard a gunshot. He heard Jocelyn Loveres shouting for help, ran toward her, and saw her helping her mother; when he approached them, Renato Danao poked a gun at his head, so he ran away and heard two gunshots which he felt were meant for him. Edwin did not see Nicolas Compra and Danilo Pablo at that time. The following morning, March 9, 1992, he went to his sister in Novaliches and in the evening to his sister in Sta. Ana; he asked for fare to Antique because he was afraid of Panong’s threats, and his sister Judy gave him P600.00. He arrived in Antique on March 12, 1992, and on April 1, 1992, while in a bus terminal in Molo, Iloilo, he was arrested by PO3 Cristobal with a police companion and Aida Gertos. He was brought to Precinct 2, Quezon City, where he met Nicolas Compra for the first time; he had no grudge with the Loveres family and is a nephew of Lucita Loveres.

Appellant Danilo Pablo testified that he had been staying with Dominguito Suplito at Area 8, 92 Parola, Tondo, Manila for three years; on March 8, 1992, he was driving Suplito’s passenger jeepney as an extra driver plying the route between Cubao, Divisoria, and North Harbor from 5:00 in the morning to 10:00 in the evening. On March 15, 1992, at around 5:00 in the afternoon, while calling for passengers at Pier 14, he was arrested by Patrolman Lanuza and his companions without a warrant; they tied his hands with his belt, blindfolded him, and put him inside their vehicle, and at the police precinct they mauled and beat him. Danilo said he did not know Domingo, Lucita, and Robert Loveres; he saw Jocelyn Loveres for the first time in a police line-up on March 17, 1992, but she did not point at him, and during the second line-up on March 18, 1992, she likewise did not point at him; she only pointed at him, Nicolas Compra, and Esteban Orquia during the third line-up on March 19, 1992 after she and PO3 Cristobal talked in the office. He met Nicolas Compra for the first time in the precinct, did not know Domingo “Inggo” Pablo, denied residing in Inggo’s house, and denied participation in the killing. Oscar Badango corroborated that he allowed Danilo to drive the passenger jeepney assigned to him on March 8, 1992, from 5:00 in the morning to 7:00 in the evening, when he turned over the boundary, and then Danilo drove until 11:00 in the evening plying the route between Cubao and Divisoria; Felin Suplito declared that Danilo, her nephew, was living with her and on March 8, 1992 drove the same passenger jeepney her son Zaldy used to drive, arrived home at 7:00 in the evening, thereafter slept, and did not leave the house.

Appellant Nicolas Compra testified that he was a passenger jeepney driver plying the route between Cubao and Divisoria; on March 8, 1992, a Sunday, at about 3:00 in the afternoon, he was outside his house at 6158 Mercado Street, Gen. De Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila drinking beer with his brother-in-law Nedy Arpon, Willie Arpon, Noel Arpon, Monching Castillo, Melvin Casas, and others. He never left the place except when he urinated; they consumed four cases of beer, and when they stopped at 9:00 in the evening he was very drunk and his wife assisted him in going home because he could hardly walk. The following day he woke up at 7:00 in the morning and later went with his jeepney operator to the Land Transportation Office. On March 16, 1992, at 2:00 in the morning, while their family was sleeping, PO3 Roberto Cristobal, Carlito Villanueva, Rodelio Recto, and their companions arrested him without a warrant and brought him to Station 2; his wife went with him. Compra declared that he never met any member of the Loveres family before March 8, 1992; he saw Jocelyn Loveres for the first time on March 17, 1992 in a police line-up with Danilo Pablo, but Jocelyn did not point at him, and during the second line-up on March 18, 1992 she likewise did not point at him; it was only on March 19, 1992 when Jocelyn identified him and Danilo Pablo after talking with PO3 Cristobal in his office. While at the precinct, PO3 Cristobal told him to give P7,000.00 and he would order his release; he sent a note to his wife to bring the money because he did not want to stay in jail for a long time, and his wife and son-in-law Romy Quino brought the money but his wife did not give it because there were no release papers. Compra saw Danilo Pablo and Edwin Trabuncon for the first time in the police precinct on March 16, 1992, and denied involvement in the killing. Bella Luz Compra confirmed that her husband was drinking beer outside their house from 3:00 in the afternoon to 9:00 in the evening, got very drunk, was helped home and sponge-bathed, slept, and woke up at 7:00 the next morning; she also testified that her husband was arrested at 2:00 in the morning of March 16, 1992 and brought to Precinct 2, where the Desk Officer showed her an ID with a picture saying that was her husband who used the alias “Gerry,” and when she replied that the ID did not belong to her husband, she was told that if she would not tell the truth she would soon be a widow, so she kept silent. On March 22, 1992, she went to the police precinct with her son-in-law Romeo Quino because her husband sent a note asking her to bring P7,000.00 for his release; they talked with Roberto Cristobal but went home without giving the money because her husband was not guilty and Cristobal did not give the release papers. Jose Romeo Quino and Marilou Casas also testified that they saw Nicolas Compra drinking beer from 3:00 to 9:00 in the evening of March 8, 1992.

Pedro Pablo, who was also an accused in the instant case but charged in another sala, testified that around 7:30 in the evening of March 8, 1992, on his way to fetch water near the house of Maximo Trabuncon, he saw Maximo Trabuncon and his group drinking, and Maximo told him, “Huwag ka nang dumaan dito. Pag dumaan ka pa rito babasagin ko ang mukha mo.” On his way home, he saw Edwin Trabuncon near his house and told him, “Edwin, bakit ganuon and tiyo mo, tayo lang and magkakapitbahay kinukursunada pa niya ako.” Edwin talked to his uncle about the incident, but Maximo continued his “pagwawala” and pushed Edwin, who left; Maximo went in and out of his yard, and then Renato Danao went out and confronted Maximo, “Bakit ka nagwawala, pag di ka tumigil babarilin kita.” Lucita Loveres went out to pacify Renato Danao, and Maximo Trabuncon followed her; Renato Danao immediately shot Maximo Trabuncon but instead hit Lucita Loveres. Pedro tried to help her, but suddenly the group of Maximo Trabuncon, numbering about 10, were approaching and “attacked” his house, so he hid in their aratiles tree. According to Pedro Pablo, Nicolas Compra and Danilo Pablo were not present during the incident, and he did not witness the killing of Domingo and Robert Loveres. Donato Danao, also an accused in this case but charged in another court, testified that Edwin Trabuncon and the Loveres family were his neighbors; he did not see Danilo Pablo and Nicolas Compra on March 8, 1992 in Quezon City, and he met them for the first time when he was confined in November 1994 at the city jail of Quezon City. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which appeared straightforward, sincere, and truthful, and found that eyewitnesses Jocelyn Loveres, Edgar Loveres, and Aida Gertos positively identified the accused-appellants as having taken part in the crimes against Domingo, Lucita, Robert, and Edgar Loveres; it held that the defense of bare denials and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely.

• Conspiracy: Appellants contended that the prosecution established that it was only Renato “Panong” Danao who shot Lucita Loveres, but the trial court convicted them of murder on the ground of conspiracy, which was not supported by evidence.
• Treachery: Appellants faulted the trial court for holding that the murder of Domingo and Robert Loveres was attended by treachery; they asserted that there was no treachery because before Domingo and Robert went out of the house, Jocelyn shouted for help, showing that they had been forewarned of the impending trouble ahead of them.
• Superior Strength: Appellants argued against the presence of the aggravating circumstance of superior strength in the murders of Domingo and Robert Loveres because there was no showing that Domingo and Robert refused to fight or defend themselves because of their superiority in number; as to Edgar Loveres, they asserted that Edgar was stabbed by Inggo only once and hit by Edwin Trabuncon with a piece of wood only once before he ran away, and there was no evidence that the accused were physically stronger and abused such superiority.
• Evident Premeditation: Appellants contended that evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance because the prosecution failed to prove that sufficient time elapsed between the determination and the execution to allow an offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

• Conspiracy in the Killing of Lucita Loveres: Whether the trial court erred in finding that Danilo Pablo, Nicolas Compra, and Edwin Trabuncon conspired with Renato “Panong” Danao in killing or shooting Lucita Loveres.
• Treachery, Superior Strength, and Evident Premeditation in the Murders of Domingo and Robert Loveres: Whether the trial court erred in holding that the murders of Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres were committed with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery, superior strength, and evident premeditation.
• Superior Strength and Evident Premeditation in the Attempted Murder of Edgar Loveres: Whether the trial court erred in holding that the attempted murder of Edgar Loveres was committed with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and evident premeditation.
• Proper Crime and Penalty for Edgar Loveres: Whether, absent any qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime against Edgar Loveres is only attempted homicide and what penalty should be imposed.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral and exemplary damages should be reduced and the actual or compensatory damages fixed in accordance with the evidence and prevailing jurisprudence.

• Conspiracy in the Killing of Lucita Loveres: No. Implied conspiracy was established; appellants were armed with Panong when he shot Lucita, did not protest or help her, and acted in unison with the group, showing a common criminal design.
• Treachery, Superior Strength, and Evident Premeditation in the Murders of Domingo and Robert Loveres: Partly. Treachery attended the killings, and abuse of superior strength was present but absorbed by treachery; evident premeditation was not proved.
• Superior Strength and Evident Premeditation in the Attempted Murder of Edgar Loveres: Yes. The trial court erred in finding both circumstances; the attack on Edgar was made alternately, not simultaneously, and there was no proof of evident premeditation.
• Proper Crime and Penalty for Edgar Loveres: Attempted homicide only. Absent qualifying circumstances, the crime is attempted homicide, punishable by prision correccional; the SC imposed an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum.
• Damages: Moral damages to the heirs of the deceased victims were reduced to P50,000.00 each and exemplary damages to P20,000.00 each; actual or compensatory damages were P27,310.60. For Edgar, moral damages were P20,000.00 and exemplary damages were deleted.

• Conspiracy in the Killing of Lucita Loveres: The SC applied the rule that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement; it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime showing they acted in unison with a common purpose or design. An overt act may consist in actively participating in the crime, lending moral assistance by presence at the scene, or exerting moral ascendancy. Here, when Panong called Lucita and she came out, appellants were with him armed—Danilo with a knife, Nicolas with a bolo, and Edwin with a piece of wood. When Panong shot Lucita, there was no evidence that appellants were surprised, protested, or tried to help her; instead, they appeared united in a common criminal design, and their armed presence gave encouragement and a sense of security and purpose among themselves. The SC cited People vs. Sotes and People vs. Casey. Since conspiracy was established, the act of one was the act of all, and all conspirators were liable as co-principals; thus the trial court correctly held them liable for Lucita’s murder, qualified by alevosia when Panong suddenly shot her while they were conversing.
• Treachery, Superior Strength, and Evident Premeditation in the Murders of Domingo and Robert Loveres: The SC defined treachery as when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods, or forms in execution that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. Appellants argued no treachery because Jocelyn shouted for help, but the SC disagreed: when Domingo, who had been sleeping, and Robert went out, there was no showing they knew of the danger; Jocelyn ran toward her father because he did not know what was happening, but she did not reach him because the group pulled and dragged him to the front of Inggo Pablo’s house, and did the same to Robert, both unarmed, then repeatedly stabbed, hacked, and killed them. This manner of execution deprived them of any opportunity to defend themselves, so treachery attended. On superior strength, the SC held that superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength; it must be shown that the aggressors cooperated to secure advantage from their superiority in strength, with proof of relative physical strength or that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. The prosecution established that the group of appellants, numbering 10 and all armed, took advantage of their superior strength in killing Domingo and Robert, who were unarmed. However, evident premeditation had no factual basis because the prosecution failed to prove the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to his determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. In implied conspiracy, there must be proof of how and when the plan was hatched and the time that elapsed before it was carried out. Thus the trial court correctly convicted appellants of murder of Domingo and Robert, qualified by treachery, which absorbed the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
• Superior Strength and Evident Premeditation in the Attempted Murder of Edgar Loveres: The SC agreed with appellants. When Edgar tried to lift his mother after she was shot, Inggo Pablo stabbed him and Edwin Trabuncon hit him with a piece of wood on the left forearm, so Edgar ran inside their house. The attack was made on him alternately and not simultaneously. The SC held that use of superior strength should not be considered when the attack was made on the victim alternately, one after the other; it was not shown that Inggo Pablo and Edwin Trabuncon cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their combined or superior strength in attacking Edgar. Evident premeditation also could not be considered because the prosecution failed to prove the time when they determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow them to reflect. Thus absent any attendant circumstance under Article 248, the crime against Edgar was only attempted homicide.
• Proper Crime and Penalty for Edgar Loveres: Since the crime against Edgar was attempted homicide, not attempted murder, the SC applied the penalty for attempted homicide, which is prision correccional, two degrees lower than reclusion temporal, the penalty for homicide under Article 249. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty ranges from one month and one day to six months of arresto mayor, and the maximum ranges from two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months of prision correccional in the medium period, absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The SC imposed six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum.
• Damages: The SC reduced the award of moral damages to the heirs of the deceased victims from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. Exemplary damages were reduced to P20,000.00. Actual or compensatory damages were P27,310.60 as borne by the evidence. For Edgar, moral damages were P20,000.00, and exemplary damages were deleted absent any finding of one or more aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.

• Implied Conspiracy — Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement; it can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. The SC applied this to hold appellants liable for Lucita’s murder even though only Panong shot her, because they were armed with him and acted in unison.
• Overt Act in Conspiracy — An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy may consist in actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, in lending moral assistance to co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or in exerting moral ascendancy. The SC found that appellants’ armed presence gave encouragement and a sense of security and purpose among themselves.
• Act of One Is the Act of All — Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and all conspirators are liable as co-principals. The SC applied this to hold appellants liable for Lucita’s murder despite Panong being the one who shot her.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The SC applied it to the killings of Domingo and Robert, who were unarmed and dragged and attacked in a manner that deprived them of any opportunity to defend themselves, and to Lucita, who was suddenly shot while conversing with Panong.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength; it is necessary to show that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength, or proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the assaulted party, or proof that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. The SC found it present in the killings of Domingo and Robert because the group of appellants, numbering 10 and all armed, took advantage of their superior strength over the unarmed victims, but held it absorbed by treachery. In Edgar’s case, the SC held it not present because the attack was made alternately, not simultaneously.
• Evident Premeditation — The requisites are: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In implied conspiracy, there must be proof as to how and when the plan was hatched and the time that elapsed before it was carried out. The SC found these requisites not proved for any of the crimes.
• Attempted Homicide vs. Attempted Murder — Absent any attendant circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code to qualify the crime as murder, the killing of a person without the qualifying circumstances is homicide; an attempt to commit it is attempted homicide. The SC applied this to Edgar Loveres because superior strength and evident premeditation were not proved, reducing the conviction from attempted murder to attempted homicide.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — For attempted homicide, punishable by prision correccional, the SC applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and imposed six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

• "It is a settled rule that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement on the commission of the crime as the same can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design." — This defines implied conspiracy and supports the SC’s holding that the appellants conspired in the killing of Lucita Loveres.
• "Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all." — This is the rule the SC applied to hold all appellants liable for Lucita’s murder even though only Panong shot her.
• "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This is the SC’s definition of treachery, applied to qualify the killings of Domingo and Robert Loveres.
• "Use of superior strength should not be considered when the attack was made on the victim alternately, one after the other." — This is the rule the SC applied to reject superior strength in the attempted killing of Edgar Loveres.

• People vs. Sotes, 260 SCRA 353 [1996] — Cited for the rule that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime.
• People vs. Casey, G.R. No. L-30146, February 24, 1981, 103 SCRA 21 — Cited for the rule on overt acts in conspiracy and on abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759 [1968] — Cited for the rule that all conspirators are liable as co-principals.
• People vs. Magno, G.R. No. 134535, January 19, 2000 — Cited for the rule that a sudden shooting while conversing qualified the crime with alevosia.
• People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169 [1987] — Cited for the rule on evident premeditation in implied conspiracy.
• People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000 — Cited for the rule that treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Narciso, 23 SCRA 844 [1968] — Cited for the rule that superior strength should not be considered when the attack was made alternately.
• People vs. Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999 — Cited for the reduction of exemplary damages and the deletion of exemplary damages absent aggravating circumstances.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder; at the time of the March 8, 1992 crimes, punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The SC used it to qualify the killings of Domingo, Lucita, and Robert as murder and to impose reclusion perpetua.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — When the penalty prescribed by law contains three periods and there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty in its medium period shall be imposed. The SC applied it to affirm reclusion perpetua for the murders.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Homicide; attempted homicide is punishable by prision correccional, two degrees lower than reclusion temporal. The SC applied it to Edgar Loveres after finding no qualifying circumstances.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to attempted homicide; the SC imposed six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum.
• Article 14, Section 16, Revised Penal Code — The text cites this provision for treachery; the SC applied treachery to qualify the killings of Domingo and Robert and the shooting of Lucita.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — The text notes that the crimes were committed before Republic Act No. 7659 was enacted on January 1, 1994; this determined the applicable penalty for murder under Article 248.