People v. Mores

PEOPLE v.
RAMIL MORES
G.R. No. 189846
June 26, 2013
TOPIC: Aggravating Circumstance / Treachery (Use of Explosives)
ISSUE: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present in the commission of the crime
FACTS:
- At about 6 PM, Daryl Famisaran was chatting with his friends. While they were conversing, Ramil Mores
(Mores) passed by, stopped before them and with a grenade in his hand, talked to them and said: “Gusto
niyo pasabugin ko ito?” After Mores had left, they immediately dispersed.
- At about 9 PM of the same day, Daryl was at Roxas Gymnasium where a ball was being held. There were
many people in the gym. While the dancing was on-going, Daryl saw Mores at a distance of about 5
armslength on the same row from them. Mores was the with his co-accused Delio Famor (Famor) and they
were whispering with each other.
- In between Daryl and the two accused were persons sitting on the rows of chairs and spectators. He saw
Mores pull out a round object, the grenade and threw it on the floor as if rolling a ball.
- A commotion ensued and Daryl heard outcries. The explosion wounded several persons and killed a person.
- The narrative of Daryl Famisaran was corroborated by Esteban Galaran, Jr. According to Esteban, he knew
Mores and Famor because they were former members of Civilian Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU).
Defense of Delio Famor

- Famor claimed that at the night of the explosion, he slept early in his house with his wife and two-year old
child. His house was located at Fabellla Village and estimated to be (100) meters from the gymnasium.
- At about 9 PM, his wife woke up him and told him that there was an explosion from the direction of Camp
Gozar. At the time, he was a member of CAFGU assigned at Camp Gozar.
- He then went out, thinking it was an NPA Raid. However, it was actually in the gymnasium where the
explosion took place. He met a Rey Raymundo who told him that It was from the plaza.
- Famor met Sgt. Paraoan and joined him in looking for Paraoan’s children because they also attended the
ball. They found them at the hospital because they brought there a cousin who was wounded in the explosion.
- Famor denied the statement of Famisaran He also likewise denied the statement of Esteban.
RTC
- In the arraignment, both Mores and Famor pleaded not guilty.
- While the trial was on-going, Mores, who had been granted bail, failed to appear during two hearing dates.
Thus, the bail bond that he posted was forfeited, a bench warrant was issued against him and he was tried
in absentia. Only Famor was able to present evidence on his defense.
- The trial court found Mores guilty of the complex crime of murder with multiple attempted and was
sentenced to death.
- Mores is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Ramie Balasa compensatory damages and actual
damages.
- Famor was acquitted on the ground that there was lack of evidence to establish that Famor was a co-
conspirator of Mores in the commission of the crime.
CA
- In view of the death penalty handed down by the trial court, appellant's case was automatically elevated to
this Court for re-examination; however, in conformity with the rule we laid down in People v. Mateo, the matter
was remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
- Affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications.
- Mores is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua (since RA 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines was already enacted) with no eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay civil
indemnity, exemplary damages and temperate damages.
HELD: YES. GUILTY OF MURDER WITH MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER (reclusion perpetua)
RATIO:
- The elements must concur in order to establish treachery: a.) that at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself; and b.) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of
attack employed. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.
- Therefore, the manner by which Mores deliberately rolled the grenade on the ground towards the dance floor
packed with unsuspecting people, leaving one dead and many wounded in the aftermath of the sudden blast
was accompanied by treachery.
- Mores’ unexpected action which was immediately followed by the grenade’s lethal explosion left the victims
with utterly no chance to escape the blast area nor to find protective cover. Though Mores stood a short
distance away, he knowingly positioned himself safely from the reach of the grenade’s destructive force.

People v. Mores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Mores

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Mores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

TOPIC: Aggravating Circumstance / Treachery (Use of Explosives)

Defense of Delio Famor

You might also like